A treatise on the law and practice of injunctions [microform]

CIHM

Microfiche
Series

(Monographs)

ICMH

Collection de

microfiches

(monographies)

Cn.di«i ln.titut. for Hi.tarie.1 Micrortproductioii. / InttHut e.n.di«n d. mlcror.production. htotonque.

Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographicatly unique, which may alter any of
the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming are
checked below.

□
U

□

□
□

□
□
□
□

Coloured covers /
Couverture de couieur

Covers damaged /
Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated /
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e

Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps / Cartes g^ographiques en couieur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) /
Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Cotoured plates and/or illustrations /
Planches et/ou illustrattons en couieur

Bound with other material /
HeM avec d'autres documents

Only editk}n available /
Seule Mitton disponible

1/1 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along
'— ' interior margin / La reliure serr6e peut causer de

I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge

int^rieure.

I I Blank leaves added during restorattons may appear
— within the text. Whenever possible, these have been
omitted from filming / Use peut que certaines pages
blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration
apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait
possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 f ilmtes.

L'instltut a microflinn* le nrwilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a
6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem-
plaire qui sent peut-6tre uniques du point de vue bibli-
ographkiue, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite,
ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^tho-
de normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous.

I I CokMirsd pages/ Pages de couieur

I I Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^

□

Pages restored and/or laminated /
Pages restaur^ et/ou pellicula

Q Pages discoloured, stained or foxed /
Pages cMcotortes, tachet^es ou piqu^es

I I Pages detached / Pages d^tach^es

ly\ Showthrough /Transparence

Quality of print varies /

□
□

□

QualM Indgale de rimpresston

Includes supplementary material /
Comprend du materiel suppl^me ,^ ■> r j

Pages wholly or partially obscurtii ^^y ^rraia slips,
tissues, etc., have been refilmed to e _ the best
possible image / Les pages totalement ou
partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'enata, une
pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es k nouveau de fafon k
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Opposing pages with varying colouration or
discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best
possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des
colorations variables ou des decolorations sont
film^es deux fois afin d'obtenir la meilleure image
po8stt)le.

1^ Addittonal comments /

Commentaires suppMmentaires:

Various paglngs.

Triis Hem !• filmed at the reduction ratio checked below /

C« document est f Um4 au taux de rMuetien indiqui ei^soua.

lOx

14x

18x

22x

26x

30x

L.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

12x

1«X

20x

24x

28x

32x

Th« copy filmed h«r« hat bMii raproduMd thanka
to tha ganarosity of:

^mrwi Court of CMMla
OttaiM

Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality
poaaibia eenaidaring tha condition and lagibility
of tha original copy and in icaaping with tha
filming contract apacif icationa.

Original copias in printad papar covara ara fllmad
beginning with tha front covar and anding on
tha laat paga with a printad or iliuatratad impraa*
aion, or tha bacit covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copiaa ara filmad beginning on tha
first paga with a printad or iliuatratad Impraa-
aion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad
or Hluatratad impraaaien.

Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha
shall contain tha symbol (moaning "CON-
TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"),
whichavar appliaa.

Mapa, piataa, charts, ate., may ba fiimad at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to ba
entirely included in one exposure era filmad
beginning in the upper laft hand comar. left to
right and top to bottom, as many framaa as
raquirad. The following diagrama illuatrata tha
mathod:

L'axampiaira fiim4 fut raproduit grica A la
gAniroait* da:

Cour suprtas du Csmds
Ottawa

Las images suivantes cnt M reproduites svec le
plus grsnd soin, compte tenu de la condition st
de la nanet* de l exemplaire film*, et en
eonformit* avac laa conditiona du eontrat da
filmaga.

Las axemplairas originaux dont ia eouvarture en
papiar aat imprim^a aont fiimia an commandant
par la premier plet et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon la caa. Tous laa autraa axemplairas
originaux sont filmis an commandant par la
premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration at en terminant par
la dami*ra page qui comporta una taila
amprainta.

Un das symboles suivsnts apparaitra sur la
darniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le
caa: la symbola signifia "A SUIVRE". le
symbola V aignifia "FIN".

Laa cartaa. planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent *tre
filmAs i des ttux de reduction diffarents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra
reproduit an un saul cHch*. 11 aat fllm« t partir
de I'engle supirieur gauche, de gauciie i droite,
et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre
d'images n*cessaire. Lea diagrammes suivants
illuatrant la mAthoda.

1

2

3

4

5

6

53

A IBEATISE

OV TUB

LAW AND PRACTICE

or

INJUNCTIONS.

BY

WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR,

or umoui't uiii, (*MutinM*^w.

FtFTH EDITION.

BT

JOHN MELVIN PATERSON, M.A., LL.M.,

•V »■ MDou TBiru, ■tBaamni-4T-i.4W.

LONDON:

SWEET k MAXWELL, LIMITED,

S, CHANCERY LANE, W.C. L/BRAR

TORONTO, CANADA: CO(/>}r
THE CABSWEUi COMPANY, LIMITED.
law puMtsben.
1914.

PBEFACE.

ilLEVKK years have elapsed since the publiciition of the Fourth
Edition of this work, and during this period a larg.^ number of
cases hare been decided and Acts passed which have affected
statements in the text, necessitating considerable alterations and
additions to the present Edition, the te of which has be^
increased to the extent of over 90 pages. Th Index has also ham
enlarged, and references have been given to contemporary reports
(including liio Revised Reports up to vohimo 126), which, it is
Jioped, will add to the usefulness of the work. All material deci-
sions which have been reported to date will be found in the text,
or in the Addenda on page Iviii.

J. M. PATER80N.

9, Old SqoABK,

Lincoln's Inn,

2I>^ February, 1914.

\

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

IirjOKOTIOHt IK OnrBBAIt I

CHAPTEB II.

Tun NATCRB AVD UMITS Cf TUU JDimDICTmM OF TBI BIOR

COUBT or JUtTIOB BT UTJUNOTIOM $

CdXPTEB III.
iKjcjronoHi AoAixn run vioi^noB w oomiow la.w biobtr

16-47

Bwtitm 1.— The Protection of Legal Rights to Property

pending Litigation 15

Section 2.— Perpetual Injunctions. Mandatory Injimo-

tiona 32

CHAPTER IV.

ImJUNOTIOKS against WABTB 4g IQQ

S%eikm 1.— PHnciples on which the Court acts in

restraining Waste 48

Section 2.~Legal Waste 5O

Section 8.— Persons for and against whom Injunctions

are granted 71

Section 4.— Equitable Waste g3

Section 5.— Property in Timber t t by the Order of the

Court, waooidentally severed, ifee. Account 98

Sectitm 9.— Becmt Statotes affecting Waste ... 97

CHAPTER V.

Injunctions against tbismm .... 101—147

General Jurisdiction JOI

Trespasa by Crown ....... 112

'■AOS

TreBpiiitg by CompanieB and Public BodiM . . .112

Lsn^ CImum Ael, 1845

Railways Clauseg Act, 184B 181

Municipal Corporations 139

TraapaM in working Minos .146

iMVKonoKa
8«ction

Section

Kection
Section

Section
Section
Seetiim

Section
Section

CHAl'TJilt vr.

▲OAINBT NVI8AN0R .... 148—827

1. — Prineiplea en which th« Court acts in re

•^traininp Nuisancr's, public or piivufo

2. — Nuisances to Dwelling Houses and Houses

of Boainess

.*). -Nuisances to Support
4.— Nuisances relating ♦oWatnr .
8.— Purpreetures. Nuisances to Navigable Tidal

Waters

6. — Nuisances to Rights of Way

7. — Nuisances to Highways .

8. — Nuiaancea to Ferriea ....

9. — Nuisances to Market ....

10. — Nuisances connected with Trade Diaputea

148

176
209
229

267

275
295
811
816
820

Injunctions
Section

Section
Section
Section
Section

CHAPTER VII.

AOAINHT THK IXFRIXORMKNT OK PATKNTS ,328—866

1. — Principles on which the Court restrains the

Infringement of Patents .... 828

2. — What is an Infringement . . . . 333

3. — interlocutory Relief 343

4. — Practice oa Interiocutory Injunctions . . 346
6.— Perpetual Injanctiona .... 849

CHAPTEB VIII.
Injunctions to restrain PAsaiiro off, aho piraot of tradb

MARKS AND NAMES ...... 357 Qgg

Principles on which the ( ourt acts in restraining the

Passing off of Qooda 887

Trade Marin and Trade Names 889

PAOI

(CHAPTER IX.

Inji NCTION"* AOAINHC THK INKllIVOKMf XT OF oorTBIOBT 389—427

Section l.—t'opy right in Uener*! .... 889

80etion 2.— What it m Infringmnoit . . 899

Section .T — Hctnodics for Infringement , . . 410

Bsction 4. — International ( upyright . . . . 420

S««^ioa 5.— Copyright in Designs .... 421

CHAPTKH X.

InJI NCTIONM 1.\ RKbFKC -l' OK COVKNANTS OR 428—502

Section i — injunctims against Breach of Covenant or

Agreement -»28

Section 2.— injunctimu in Aid of Specific Performance 600

CHAPTER XI.

iNJl NCriOSH AOAINHT THK DIHCLOSURK OF OOKnOltTTUIi COM-

HUNICATION8, PAPBRB, BBCBBTS, kO. . . 608 — 508

CHAPTER XII.

Injunctions aoainst the publication of LIB8I slamdbr op

TITLE, AND THREATS OF PhOCKEDINGS . . 609 — 518

rHAPTER xin.
Injunctions aoainst exbcutorb 619

Ch.;'. TER XIV.
Imjukctionb aoaihst trcbtiu 621

CHAPXER XV.
iNjuMcmoirs bbtwum pabtkbu .628

CHAPTER XVI.
iNjuNcnoMB BKTWBBir momtokoon ahd xobtoaobb . 688

CHAPTER XVII.
Ikjvnotiohb aoainbt ooxrANns .... 546—688

viii COHTENTB.

PAQI

CHAPTER XVIII.

INJDK0TI0K8 AOAINBT OOBPOUnONB .... 684—699

CHAPTER XIX.
Injunctions against clubs, bocibtibs, tbadb onions, kc. 600

CHAPTER XX.
Orders rbstrainino procbrdinos gQg

CHAPTER XXI.
Injunctions to stat wrongful acts of a spbcial natdbb . 621

CHAPTER XXII.

P"**''''"^ 643-694

Section 1.— In what manner Injunctions sre obtMned;

Damages or Injunction .... 643
Section 2.— Dissolution of Injunctions . . . 675

Section 8.— Effect of Certain Proceedings on Injunc-
tions 679
Section 4.— Continuing or granting Injunctions at the

Hearing 680

Section 6.— Inquiry as to OMDages when Injunction

dissolved ..... 682

Section 6.— Consequences of the Breach of an Injunc-
tion or Restraining Order . . . 684

INDEX

696

TABLE OF CASES.

A COMPANT, Be, 13, 609, 620, 637
A & B InfaDte, B«, W
Aas V. Benham, 029
Abbey v. Gutteres, 485, 486
AbbotHford Hotel v. Kinghani, 576
Abbott V. Holloway, 183
Abergavenny Commit. ». Stnker,

315, 317
Aberaethy r. Hutchinson, 410
Abraham v. Bubb, 73, 84

r. Mayor of London, 1 19

Aoeident Insnranoe Co. v. Accident

Disease, &c., Co., M8, 581
Accountants (Edinbui^) «. Cor-
poration of Accountaats, 309
Accountants, lie, 8e«My *. Good-
way, 369
Acraman v. Bristol Dock Co., 649
Actiengesellschaft, &c. v. Hommel,
3A8.364.

Actien Gesellschaft v. Teniler, 330,
347

Acton V. Blundell, 281

V. Woodgate, 624

Adair v. Young, 18, 335, 685

V. Old Bushmills Distillery,

565

Adam v. Bank of England, 621, 623
Adams v. North British Rly., 330

V. London and Blackwall Rly.,

121—123

r. Scott, S38, 840

V. Ui»eU, 176, 177, 200, 201,

202,448

Aerators, Lim., f. ToUitt, 368, 5S0 —
883

Africa (Bank of) ». Cohen, 11, 12,
8M

Agar'aeaM, lis

Agar V. P. aad 0. Staam. to.. Co.,
392

Aiaaworth «. Bentley, 20, 415, 442

*. Wilding, 606, 606, 679

Airdria Magistrates v. Lanark

County Council, 265
Aktiebolaget Hjorth, Re, 363
Albert. Prmoe, v. Strange. 418. 676
Alcott ti. Millv's Forest Co., 612

Aldin f. Latimer, 185, 198
Aldis I'. Fraser, 103

V. London Corporation, 141

Aldred's case, 181, 197, 109, 201, 380
Aldridge v. Aldridge, 633
Alexander (Dickson & Sons) v.

Alexander, 365
Alexander v. Automatic Teleplione
Co., 559, 575, 576, 580

f. Valentine, 644

Allan V. tiomme, 282, 283
Allard v. Jones, 640
Allm (Samuel) & Co., Be, 70
Allen V. Flood, 328

V. Martin, 102, 104. 105

1>. Oakey, 42

V. Onnond, 293

V. Seckham, 43, 188

V. Taylor, 186, 188, 464

Allied V. MerrybaBt, «»., Bly., 138,

Allhnaen v. Ealing and Soutli Bar-
row Rly. Co., 127
Allport r. Securities Co., 20, 48
Almada and Tirito Co., Be, 564
Alston V. Eastern Countiea BIt. Co..

125 '
Altmann v. Royal Aquarium, 476
Amalgamated Society Railway Ser-
vants V. Osborne, 327, 605, 606
Amalgamated Syndicates, Lim., 570
Amber Sise Co. v. Mensel, 603, 504,
607

Ambler v. Gordon, 176, 179—181

American Braided Wire Co. v Thom-
son, 42

American Tobacco Co. v. Guest, 39.

354, 382, 419, 664
Ames V. Birkenhead Dock, 641
Amhurst v. Dawling, 543
Amyott, Ex parte, 623
Andeiaen *. Andenon, 535

». Bank of British Columbia.

608

V. Francis, 43. 179, 189. 197.

200

f. .T.icnhst, 27.'5

i>. Midland Rly., 563

X

TABU OF CASKS.

Andemon v. Wallace, 536
Anderton r. Yates, 6.5i>
Andrew r. Hiidgnian, 449

I'. Kufharick, ;}6,3

V. Raoburn, 640

AndieWB r. Abprtillory U.D.C, ;)2

107, 141, 142, 155, 297,

304

V. G. E. Ely. Co., 137

f. Mitchell, 602

V. Waite, 177. 193, 195—197

Angerateiri r. Hunt, 57, 687
Aiigier c. May, 658
Anglo-Danubiap, &c, Co. v. Roeer-
Bon, 660

Anglo-Swiss Milk Co., v. Pearks, 375
Anglo-Universal Bank v, Baragnon,
S74

Ankersou v. Connelly. 179, 180, 196
Anon. (Frcem. (^h.), 85

(2 K. &. .J.). 528, 535

(6 Madd.), .521

(2 .Sim. N. S.), 634

(1 Ve*i.), 93

(12 Ves.), 519

Anthony Birrell, Pearoe St, Co., Be,
653

ApoUinaris Co. v. Wilson, 377

Aquaacutum Co. v. Cohen, 381

Arehbold r. Scully. 25, 37

Archer v. Marsh, 456

Architects (.Society of) v. Kendrick,
7, 33, 370

Ardley v. Guardians of St. Fancras,
102, 105

Arkwright v. Cell, 247

V. Gryles, 621

Amutrong v. Armstrong, 611

Armstrong Oiler Co. v. Patent Axle-
bar. &c.. Co., 377

Arnold r. Hlakfr, ;to3

I'. Morgan. 2!I8. .'i.'io

Arnot V. Brown, 206

Amott !•. Whitby District Cooncil,
27, 28, 298

Arthur v. Consolidated Kent Col-
lieries, 658

V. Lambe. 72

Arundel v. Bell. 535

Ash t'. Great N'ortheni, Piccadilly,
&c.. Rly., Co. 161

V. Invicta, &c., Co., 365, 381

Ashburton (Ivord) r. Pape, 603, 504

Ashbury v. Watson. 561

Railway Carriage Co. v. Riche,

547, 548, 661, 566. 568, 584

Ash by r. Hincks, 86

A:ihuvLT Fluor Spar Mines Co. v.
Jackson, 140

Aahton t. Stock, 146

Ashton Vale Iran Co. v. Briato'

Corp., 121, 122, 126
Aahworth V. Hebden, &c., Loeal

Board. 476. 595, 641
— — - V. Knglisli C.ird Clothing Co.,

670

Aslatt V. Mayor of Southampton, 4,

5, 37, 661
Aspden v. Seddon, 213, 221
Astley t). Manchester, Sheffield and
Lincolnshire Rly., 567

V. Weldon, 467

Aston tf. Aston, 84, 89

V. Heron, 641

Atherton v. Cheshire Coonty Conneil,

Atkmson i>. <<rey, 520

Atkyns v. Kinneir, 457

Att.-Gen. v. Acton Local Board, ^71,

244, 260, 261
V. Albany Hotel Co.. 30, 31,

183. 659, 660, 661

1'. Anderson, 525

t». Andrews, 5«7, 591

t'. Antrobus, 296 — 299

t'. Appleton, 583

V. Ashbome Recreation

Ground, 0

V. Ashby, 306

e. Aspinall, 586, 587

(Australia) v. Adelaide Steam-
ship Co., 450, 458

I'. Avon, Portreeve of, 585, 586

— — V. Barker, 112, 141, 308, 309

■ r. Barnet Gas Co., 549, 589

V. Bamsley (;orp., 203

f.'. Barry Docks, &c., Co., 135

V. Basingstoke, 156, 263

V. Batley, 687, 690, 693

V. Bermondsey, 692

«. Biphosphated (iuano Co.,

299. 300, 302
V. Birmingham, Borough of,

23, 169, 244, 260
I-. Birmingham Drainage

Board, 13, 175
V. Birmingham, Tame, &c..

Drainage Board, 17, 26, 32

—37, 110, 156, 170. 176.

240. 261. 262, 661, 587,

669, 681, 682
f. Birmingham and Oxford

Rly., .552

r. Blackburn Corporation, 593

— ■ — f. Blackpool Corporatfam, 396

V. Boden, 373, 535

V. Bradford Canal Proprietois.

17,22, 35, 174,264

V. BntMnose College. 69«

p. Bnoon, 478, tm, 691

TABLB or 0A8B8.

Att.-Gen. v. BriggB, 22

V. Brighton Supply Abu., 150,

181.205.308,311

V. Bnrridge, 868

». CamberweU, 690

V. Cambridfje Conaumen' Gas

Co., 152

V. Cardiff. 591, 593

V. Castiel, Corporation of, 685

V. Chamberlain, 268

r. Chambflre, 267

r. Chandog Land, &»., Society,

296, 297, 300

V. Church, 694

V. Chnrchill'a Veterinary Sana-
torium, 683

V. Cleaver. 201

V. ('lerkenwoU Vostry, 262

V. Cock, 596

V. Cockermouth Local Board,

169, 550

p. Cole, 156, 200, 201, 205

V. Cohiey Hatch Asyltun, 47,

156, 168—171, 174. 261,

669

Compton, 597

V. Conduit Colliery Co., 210,

217

I'. Constable, 14

V. Connumers' (ias Co., 155

V. Croydon A. C, 306

V. Daniel. 593

t'. Dausarf . 524

V. Dedham School, 586

1». De Winton, 686, 588. 590,

594

V. Dorche«ter Corporation, 163

164, 168

V. Dorin, 18, 144

I'. Dorking, Uuardians of, 13,

170, 242, 244. 262, 263
«. Doughty, 181

V. DabUn, Mayor, tec., of. 686

V. DnbUn Steam Packet Co.,

439

I'. Dulwich College, 595

V. East Bamet U. D. C., 593,

594

I'. Eastern Countiea Bly., 29,

135

V. Eaatlake, 49, 694

V. Ely and Sutton Rlv., 134

V. Emerson, 267, 273*

r. Eshor, &c., Co., 293, 299

f. Etheridge, 526

V. Faversham Corporation, 35

t>. Finchley l(0<-al Board. 261

ti. Fleetwood U. D. C, 588,

690

V. Forbes, 18, 161

Att. -Gen. ('. Foundling Hospital, 569

1'. Fowler, 596

V. Frimley and Famborough

Water Co., 113, 116, 132,

649. 689

V. Gamer, 110, 309, 646

r. Gas Light and Coke Co., 168

V. Caunt, 595

r. (iibb, 7, 36, 47. 144, 170, 682

V. (iould, 525

V. Grand .lunctinn Canal Co.

21, 25, .3.3, .36, 37, 43, 110.

170, 240, 499, 550, 587
V. Gray's Chalk Qnanies Co.,

308

1'. Great Eastern Bly., 131,

168, 232, .548, 568, 671
I'. Groat N'orthcm Bly., 135,

240, 243, 2.50, 648, 549,
556, 559, 690

I'. Great AVestem Rly.. 134,

552

V. Grocers' Co., 656

V. Guildford Hospital Board,

202

r. Haokney Local Board, 172

V. Halifax, Corporation of, 23,

24

r. Hanwell II. D. C, 689

V. Hardy, 542

V. Hatch, 143 ' ■

V. Homer, 303, 304, 315, 316.

317

V. Johnson, 174, 268

V. Keymer Brick Co., 156, 201.

206

V. Kingston. Ma3rDr, &e., of

157, 271

V. Leeds, Corporation of, 23,

169, 174, 239, 260, 261,
263, 265

». Leicester Corp., 549, 589,

690

V. Lewes Corporation, 36, 47.

110, I'l, 151. 162, 163,

171, 172, 249, 682

• I'. Lichfield, Corporation of,

594

V. Lindsay-Hogg, ,300, 306

V. Liverpool, ('orporation of,

521. 651, 676

V. Lock, 596

v. Logan, 111. 150. 161

f. London and North-Western

Rly., 112. 113, 169, 170.

550, 551

f. Irf>ndon jHul y..T.:th-WeBtarB

RIt., 136, 208, 666

V. Lonttm Conaty Conaei].

118, 690

TABLE ^

Att.-G«n. V. J»ndonderry Bridge
Commiaaionen, 311

V. Lord LoDRdale, 151, 268, 272

t'. Luton Boud of Health.

23, 242. 244

r. Majtdalen Coll., Oxford, 595,

596

I'. Manchester and Leeds Ely.,

28, 472

V. Manolipster Corporation, 18,

31,202.207. 047.M».fi84,

588, 590

V. Hwlborongb, Duke of, 74,

02

t?. Mayo County Conneil, 308

V. Mersey Ry., Co. 647, 648,

.'>62

V. Merthyr Tydfll, 594

V. Motoalf and (Jreijt. 2.5. 3"

V. Metropolitan Board of

Works, 151, 168
V. MetropoUtui Rly., 135, lei,

IM

V. Mid-Kent Rly„ 113, 496

■ V. Middletons, 683

■ t'. Munro, 525

V. 7.i irdoch, 525

V. Newbury. .597

V. Newcastle, 587, 590

V. Newcoi'ibe. 586

». Nicho' 148

V. Norwich, 473, 591

f. Nottingham Conwration,

18, 167, 202

V. N. E. Rlv. Co., .548

f. Parish, 39. 41. 43, 143

V. Parmentcr, 268

r. Perry, 306

i". Playhouse Co., 445

e. Plymouth, Mayor, &c., of,

250, 591

V. Plymouth Pkh Gnano Co.,

200, 201

V. Pontypridd Trban Council.

584, 588

— I'. Pontypridd Waterworks. 9,
87, .550. «45

r. Powis, Karl of, 524, 598

V. Preston (Mayor), 156

f. Price, 596

V. Queen Anne Garden Co., 189

t'. Rathminea and Pembroke

Hospital, 18, 167. 202

f. Reynolds. 60

f. Hichniond, 206

I'. RickuLinsworth, 473, 592

t'. .'^cott. 2.5, 37, 150, 151. 164,

•im,

f. sharpness New Docks Co.,

CASES.

Att.-Gen. v. Sheffield Corporation.
589, 590

r. .Sheffield Gas Co., 8. J 9, 29,

24, 78, 148, 149, 150, 152,
154, 155, 174, 679

r. Sherborne tichool, 597

V. Shrewsbury Bridge Co., 112,

169, 309, 660

V. Simpson, 303, 312. 313

I'. Smith (George), 583

I'. Smith & .Sons, 311

V. Smythies, 595, 596

r. Southampton, (iuardians of

Poor of. 591
V. South Staffordshire Water-
works. 24, 25, 36, 37, 549,
568, 589, 504, 682

V. Spalding Rural Council, 87

V. S(iuire. 201, 206, 681

r. Staffordshire t;ounty Coun-
cil, 0. 43, 65, 197,310,431.
478, 662

V. Staines, D. C, 157

V. Standard Trust Co., New

York, 561
' V. StaweU, 66

■ V. St. Cross Hospital, 596, 597
V. St. Helens, 591
V. St. .lohn's Hospital. 586

t'. Stone, 205
r. Strong, 636

V. Swansea, 473, 567, 590, 592
f. Terry, 268, 269
V. Tewkesbury and Malvern

Rly.. 132
t>. Thanles, Conservators of.

161, 204
t . Thetford, 693
V. Thomson, 567, 591, 592
r. Tp '-Heatley, 154, 201, 205
V. T. mime, 42, 61, 147, 267,

268. 273, 274
V. Tottenham Local Board,
501

V. Tottenham U. D. C, 590
f. Tynemouth, 600, 602
t'. United Kingdom Electric

Telegraph Co., 151
I'. Vyner. 665

f. Walthamstow U. D. C, 10.
33. 35, 44, 441, 403. 493,
672, 692
». Watford U. D. C, 299. 301.

302

r. Welsh, 521. 626
V. Wemyss, 273
V. West Gloucesterahire Water
Co., 547, 548, 549, 687,
688, 680
V. Weft Um Corponition, 580

TJMM Of cuuun.

Att.-Gen. ». We«t Hartlepool, ke.,

CommiMionen, 591

V. Widnes Kly.. 108

V. Wigan, Mayor, &c.. of, 17,

473, 567, 589, 5B1
V. Willesden DUtriet Cooncil,

So, 47, 261

V. WiiKon, 586

». Wimbledon Houae Estate,

9, 25, 38, 37, 144, I'O,

551, 687

V. Wright, 271—650

V. Yarmouth, 588

V. Yorkshire (W. R.) Rivers

Board, 473
Auckland, Lord v. Westminster

Board of Works, 143
Austen v. Boys, 535
Anaterbeny «. Corporation of Old-
ham, 303, 483, 492
Austria (Emperor of) v. Day, 8, 10,
48

Automatic Self-Cleaning Filter Co.

V. Cuningham, 535, 577
Automobile Carriage Builders v.

Sayers, 465, 635
Avery t>. Langford, 437, 4'^0, 452,

456

Avory v. Andrews, 523, 686, 691
Ayhrin v. Evana, 688
Ayr Harbour TrurtoM v. Oswald,
564

BACERonax «. Bonoaal. M9, tlO,

212

BaeoB Jonaa, M, 27, 37, 328, 648
Badische Anilin Fabrik v. Basle, 334

1'. Hickson, 334

V. Isler, 337. 338, 4S3

V. Johnson, .1, 331, 387. 358

V. Levinstein, 342, 640. M9

V. Schott, 450, 461

«. Spirey, 349

B agnail v. London and North
Western Rly., 88<l

p. Villar, 77, 643

Bagot «. Baget, 49^ 57, 97
Bagriiaw «. Buxton Local Board.
308

r. Fastern Union Rly., 5'i3

Bailey v. Birkenhead, Lancaahire,

and Cheshire Jonetion

Rly., 574

V. Hobson, 72

Baily v. Clark, 234, ?36, 247, 260

V. De Crespigny. 492

— Taylor, 413, 414, 417, 426
BaiDbtUgo V. PoateaatM-OoBcraL

lis

Banbridge v. Smith, 668, 673
Baines o. Baker, 202

V. Geary, 460

Baird Wells, 600. 601

V. Williamson, 264

Baker (Albert) & Co.. Se, 363
Baker i'. HtJt'<'< ock, 438, 454, 460

V. Scbnn r. 83, 88, 92, 93

Balaghat Gold Mining Co., Re, 667
Ball V. BaU. 635

V. Bay, 204, 206, 207

BaUaohnliali Slate OoaiTiea v. Onrat.
452

Ballard v. Dyson, 286

V. Tomlii kon, 262, 858

Balls V. Strutt. 1,21
Baltic Company v. Simpson, i**"*
Bamford v. Turoley, 200
Bankart v. Hoofl^n, 88, 83, 37,
173

Bankea «. Le Deapenser, 92
Banks v. Gibson, 636

Bannister v. Bigge, 206
Banwen Iron Co., Be, 658
Barber v. Penley, 160, 157,704.808.
?94. 3U8

I'. Monico, 384

Barfl t. Probyn, 68
Barfield v. Nicholson, 442. 691
Banrate v. Shortiidge, 557
Barham v. Hodg.<w, 206
Baring v. Abingdon, 276

V. Uruguay Rly., 667

Barker v. Barker, 104

V. Faulkner, 236

V. Herbert, 154, 266

V. North StaSordahire Bly.,

23, 124,6:5 '
Barkshiro v. Grubb. 276
Barlovi v. Bailey, 200

Zhodm, 891

Bamard ». Grart Weatam Rly.
Co., 145

StcaioB OQ Co. ». Farquhar-

sou, 59
Barnes v. Dowling^ 63

V. Sonthsea Bly., 127

Bamett t>. WoohriA Boioadi Cobb-

oil, 1/2 ^
Bamey «. United T^plume Co.,

517

Baron v. Portslade U. D. C, 171
Barr v. Craven, 460
Baiiaclough v. Johnstm, 898, 800
B.^rrett v. Associated NewNaaaen
Co., 511, 612

f. Baiictt, 53

Barrington, He, 93, 94
Banow v. Isaaca, 449
Paringa Mines, 563

xiv

TABLE OF CASES.

Barrow-in-Fumeu Corporation and
Hawlinsun'a Contraet, B$, 182,

123

Harry r. Barrv. 48—50, 83, 88

Bartlett v. PhUlipg, 81

Baiehat «. London lUnatrated, Sue.,
413. 419. 421

Baakerville. Be, 68

Ban V. Dawber, 387, 388

V. Gregory, 198, 205

V. Liidlaw, 383

Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas
Co., 157, 200

Bat«niaii v. Black, 206

V. Poplar Digtriot Board, 172

Bates V. Donaldson, 449

Bathurst v. Burden, 57

Batson and Jovner v. London School
Board, 116,'ll9

Batt V. Duniittt, ^64

Batten ti. (iedye, 82 83

Batten-Poole r. Kennedy, 59

Battersea Lord v. ConiniiosionerH of
Sewers, 192

Battersea Vestry v. County of Lon-
don, See., Co., 105

Batty V. Hill, 376

Baxendale r. M Murray, 242, 244,
245

V. N. Lambeth Club, 281

Baxter v. Bower, 46, 179, 197, 204,

690

r. West, 535, 537

Bayer's Design, Be, 422, 426

Bayley v. Edmunds, 518

V. Great Western Riy., 276.

276, 277, 278, 285, 556
Bayly v. Went, 542, 642
Beale v. SaundeiH, 63
Bealey v. Shaw, 236, 240, 243
Beard v. Turner, 385
Beardnier f. London and North

Western Kly., 130
Beatdr 9i« v. Treadwell, 200
Beaucham;- Earl of, v. Darby, 610
Beaufort (I)nke) v. Aird, 273
ISeauniaii v. Kinsella, 241
Beek v. Rebow, 67
Becker r. Earl's ("ourt, Lim., 204
Beckett r. Corporation of Leeds,

304

Beckford r. Kemble, 613
Beddingtou v. Atlee 186, 187
Beddow v. Beddow, 631
Bedford (Duke) v. British Museum,
434. 494

1'. Dawson. 145

V. Ellis, 320

Bedoy^ v. Nugent, 87
Beer v. Ward. 603, 60«

Beeston v. Ford, 344
Beeaton v. Weate, 242, 243, 249
Beetham v. Fraser, 451, 460
BehrenK v. Richards, 7, 32, 34, 104,

155, 274, 299, 300, 681
Belfast Co. v. Boyd, 236
Bell V. Financial Times, 186

V. Hull and Selby Rly., 649,

678

1'. Joel, 108

«>. Love, 212, 218, 221

V. Midland Rly., 110, 153, 293

V. Quebec, Corporation of, 269

r. Whitehead, 404, 414

V. Wilson, 656

Bellamy t>. Wells, 204
Bellerby v. Hepworth, 583

r. Rowland, &c., Co., 664

Belmore r. Kent County ConneiL

306, 306
Bem)m v. Ruftord, 562
Bendelow r. Wortley I'nion, .02
Benediitus v. .Sullivan, 381
Benjamin v. Storr, 150, 294, 309
Bennett v. Whitehouse, 670
Beano Jatte, &e., v. Richardson, 342
Bentinck v. Norfolk Estuary Co.,

134

Bentley r. Bates, 96
Benwell v. Inns, 455
Benz, J{e, 362

Bergman v. Macmillan. 329
Berkhampatead Sehool, Ex p., 696,

698

Berks v. WT-combe Rly. Co., 116
Berliner «. Edison, 617
Berlita School v. Duchme, 466
Bermondaey Vestry t>. Brown, 110,

300, 303
Bemey v. Sewell, 644
Benidge v. Ward, 305
Besant v. Wood. 13, 435, 448, 607,

633

Besemures v. Besemeres, 664

Best V. Drake, 103

Betts V. De Vitre, 332, 339

V. GaUais, 362

V. Neilson, 336, 674

(Frederick) & Co. ». Piokford,

185, 186, 214, 216
Betty, Re, 65
Bevan v. Webb, 529
Beven r. Wekbock Light Co., 516
Bewick v. Whitfield, 93
Bewley v. Atkinson, 191, 193
Beyfus «. Bullock, 626
Birkott r. Morris, 328, 231
Bickford Skewea, 345, 678
Bickmore «. Dimmw, 4!l 441, 444,

496

TABLE OP CASES.

XV

Bidder v. North Staflordghire Rlv..

279, 284 '
Biddulph V. St. Geori'e's Vestry.

181, 168. 205 " '

Bideford U. C. v. Bideford. &c..

Rl, . Co., 682
Bidwell t). Holdon, 497
Bien. The, 272

Bile Bean Co. v. Davidson, 377
Bill t'. Cureton, 523

V. Sierra Nevada Co., M7

Bincley v. Marshall, 674
Birch V. Marylebone Vestry, 121
Birch Wolfe v. Wolfe, 71, 92, 96
Bird V. EgKleton, 492, S64

V. Like, 464. 645, 663, 655

V. Relph, 63, 80

Birkbeck Building Society, Be, 570
Birmingham Canal Co. v. Lloyd, 22
Birmingham District Land Co. v.

L. and N. W. Ply. 40, 124
Birmingham District Land Co. and

Allday, 487, 488
Birmin^am, Dudley, &c.. Banking

Co. V. Ross, 186, ^14
Birmingham, Mayor, See,, of. v.

Allen, 210, 211, 217
Birmingham (Mayor) v. Foster, 31.5,

320

Birmingham Vinegar Co. v. Powell,
370, 607

Bishop Auckland Industrial Co. v.
Butterknowle, 117, 218. 220, 221

Bishop V. Inman, 515

Black V. Ballymena, &c.. Commis-
sioners, 238

Black Point Syndicate v. Eastern
Concessions Co., 2. 12, 16

Blackburn Soc. v. Brooks, 661

Blackbume v. Somers, 246, 249, S60

Blackett v. Bates. 428

r. Bradley. 221

Blaokmore t>. VVTute, 65, 75

*• ^"'•y Corporation,

Vol, 032

Bla^ave v. Blagrave,*72
Blair V. Deakin, 239
Blair Open Hearth Co. v. Reigart.
577

Blake v. Peters. 49. 74. 94

V. Wallscourt, 634

V. Woolf, 255, 256

Blakeley «. Dent, 027

Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Rlv..

20,26,42,46,115.497
Blakesley's Truat, Re. 622, 824
Blarney v. Blamey, 653
Blanchard v. Bridges, 187
Blewett V. Jenldns, 64
BliMv. Hall. 201, SOS

Blissett V. Daniel, 530
Bloomfleld v. Eyre. 644, 880
Blower v. Ellis, 271
Blpxam V. Elsee. 330
— V. Metropolitan Rly., 19. 559
Blundell v. Cat^erall. 273
Blythe v. Birtley, 649, 686, 688
Boake, Robert* & Co. v. Wavlaad Sc

Co., 377—379
Boaler, If«, 810
Bodger v. Bodger, 548
Bohn t'. Bogue, 31, 403, 414
Bolivia Republic Expferation

Syndicate, Me, 631
Bolton V. Bolton, :J78, 289, 290,
634

V. London School Board, 657

Bonnard v. Perryman, 6, 009, 51(»
Bonner v. (ireat Weatem Rly., 40

550, 55* '
Bonnet v. Sadler, 64. 446
Boord V. Huddert. 385
Boosey, f. Whight. 418
Booth t'. Alcock. 187

V. Lloyd. 399

1>. Lord Leycester, 613

V. New Africander Gold Mining

Co.. 86J

». Rattt*. 260

Bordicr v. Burrell, 667

Boreham v. Hall, 200, 201

Bom V Turner. IHIi

BorougL ."ommercial Societj, 684

Borthwick v. Evening Post, 41. 367.

370, 374, 388
Bosch V. Sim»-s,Manufacturing Co.,

888, 691, 692 *
Boatook ». North Staffordshire Rlv.,
204, 208

V. Sidebottom, 280

Boucas V. Cooke, 396. 407
Boulnois V. Leake, 366
Bourbaud ■•. Bourbaud, 678
Boorke v. Alexandra xiotel Co., 41,
181

«. Davia, 296

Bonme V. Swan and Edgar, 361, 381

V. Taylor, 61

Boustead v. Dempster, 425
Bovill f. Crate, 333, 343. 347
Bow V. Hart, 14, 383, 388
Bowden v. Amalgamated Pictorials
Co., 417

V. Boxhall, 694

Bowden'a Trade Mark. 369

- — Patent Syndicate v. Smith, 330

Bowen r. Phillipt, 519

- — t'. Young, 828

Bower v. L ill, 178, 248, 288

Bowea «. L. ir, 4M, 498

tri TABtl

Bowht', Lewia, CaM. 06. 73, 83
Bomer v. M'Clesn, W, 81, 78. 381

Boworth V. Wilkefl, 404

Bowrinj; i: Swan and Edgar, SS7 <

Box r. .lubb, 255

Bovpe V. I'addingtoii Boroii({h Coun-
cil, no. 111. 150. 204. 309. m

r. Cill. 651, m'2. 678

Boyle V. Holcroft, 284

BoyM. Jtt, 617

Brace v. Taylor, 48

Bracher v. Bracher, 344

Bradbum t: Morrta, 287

Bradbury i'. Dickens, 533, 834

V. Hotten, 403

Bradford Corp. r. Ferrand, 239, 251,
2.52, 670

V. Pickles. 251, 252

Bradshaw r. Bray, U. D. C. 116.
130. 133

Braham. v. Bnatard. 3fi9

Braintree Loeal Board v. Boyton,
202

Brampton v. Beddowes, 462
Bramwell r. Halcomb. 26, 29, 403,
411, 414, 678

f. Lacy, 444

Brand v. Mitson. 520, 630, 648
Braunstein v. Accidental Death In-

auraaee Co., 438
Breay v. Royal BritJah Nniaes'

Assoc., 564, 570
Brecon Corpn. v. Edwaida, 318
Brett i: Clowser, 276
V. East India and London

Shipping Co., 478
Brewer v. Rhymney Iron Co., 218
Bridewell Hospital t». Ward. 192
Bridgea v. Highton, 272
Bridson v. xJcAIpine, 343
Brierley HUl L. B. ». Peanall, 167
Brigg t'. Thornton, 34, 438, 439, 443,

449, 681
Briggs V. Lord Oxford, 91, 437
Bright V. North, 567

V. River Plate Co., 631, 632

V. Walker, 286

Brighton Corporation v. Packham,

274

Brinckman v. Matley, 267, 273, 274
Brinamead v. Brinamead, 40, 364,

461. 664

Briscoe r. Drought,242, 247,249. 251
Bristol Corporation v. Aird. 631, 632
Bristol. Dean and Chq^r of. «.

.lones. 55
Hiislol Guardian* «. Bristol Water-
works. 444
Briatol. &».. BIy. v. Sometaet Biy.,
BTiatoT> V. Cormican. 220

Britain v. Kennedy, 390

British Insulated Cable Co. v. Lon-
don Electrical Wire Co., 423

British Light Contracting Co. v.
.Metropolitan (las Meter* Co., 341

British Liqoid Air Co. «. Bittiah
Oxygen Co., 339

British Motor Syndieate v. Taylor.
336—338

Britiah Mutoacope Co. v. Homer,
330

British Soutu Africa Co. r. De
Beers & (^o.. 12. 684, 628

British United Shoe Co. v. Collier,
336. 336, 350

British Vacuum Co. v. Exton Hotels
Co. 342

V. New Vacuum Cleaner Co.,

368, 582

Briton, &c.. Life Auociation. Be, 9.
610

Broadbent r. Imperial Gas Co., 200

r. Ramsbotham, 238, 261

Brock, A> parte, 68

Brock & Co's. (Crystal Palace) Co.
V. Pain, 370

Brocklebank v. Thompson, 303

Brockleaby «. Munn. 408

Broder v. Saillard. 162. 154. 200.
204. 205. 206, 669

Broemet v. Meyer. 374, 392

Bromley v. Smith, 460. 461. 452.
456, 460

Brook V. Evans, 639

V. M. S; & L. RIy.. 127

Brooks V. Greathed, 544

Brooks. Jenkins v. Torquay Cor-
poration, 473, 667

Brooks V. Jennings, 439

V. Lycett Swidle Co.. 343

V. Purton. 678

Broom v. Batchelor, 437

t'. Summers, 525

Broomfield v. Williams, 185, 187,214

Brown v. Ali^aster, 277, 290

V. Beat, 244

t'. Dunstable Corp., 244, 245

V. Newall, 676, 677

V. Robertson, 651

r. Windsor. 215

Browne v. Flower, 180, 182, 184,
185, 198. 214, 276. 277,
287, 474

V. La Trinidad. 574

r. Robins, 210

V. Monmouthshire Rly.Co.,574

Browning «. Wright, 437

Brownlow «. TomlinMNi. 293

Bmne v. Jamea. 14

Bmnton v. Hall, S8S

TMU or atam.

via

Bryaat v. L«feTre, 198, SOS

Bt, M3, 693

Bi7d«M t>. Biydgat. «M, Ml

V. KUbum764

t>. Stephens, 54, 89, 90

Bubb V. Yelverton, 96

Buchanan v. Andrew, 220

Buckley Si Sons v. BuoklsT, 155

Bucknall v. Tatem, 480

Bull V. Smith, 52

Bullen V. Denning, 54

». Waktij, 307

Bnlli Coal Minbig Co. r. Oaborae, 38,
145, 146

BuUin V. Teoce, 453

BuUivant i'. Att.-Uen. for Vietoiia,
606, 606

Bullock V. Chapman, 536
Bullus V. BulIuH, 520, 630, 633

Banbury v. Bunbuiy, 615
Bann «. Ony, 453
Banting «. Hieka, S38
Burberry v. Cording 4e Co., 367, 370
Burberrys r. Watkinion, 329, 360.

354. 355, 418, 41!). 664
Burchell v. Wilde, ;173, 533,534, 535
Burden v. Rigler, 296
Burdett v. Hay. 657. 675
Burgees ti. Burgess, 358, 3-^6
— V. Hatley, 387

r. Hill, 40, 386, 664

r. Lamb, 91

Burghes v. Att.-G«i, 9
Burgoine v. MooidaS, 6A6
Burgoyne t>. Banojne GodCrar It
Co. 387

Bnriaad v. Eaile, 573, 574, 57<b 578,
579

BnnnMter v. BiirmMt«r, 838, M9.
633

Bumtialaad Whale Co. v. Trotter.

201

Burrows v. Lang, 247, 249. 280
Burt V. British Nation Life

Assurance Association, 580
Burton r. Blakemore, 856

V. Hudson. 275

Bury I'. Bedford, 372, 373, 380

V. Famatima Co., 663

Bnahby v. Monday, 11, 614
Bnasy o. Amalgamated Society

Bailway Servants, 327
Bntler v. Gardener, 661

V. Northern, &c.. Co.. 571

Batt V. Imperial Gas Co., 182
Btttterknowle Colliery Co. v. Bishops

Auckland Industrial Co., 209,

217, 218, 219, 220, 221
Bntterley Co. v. New Hucknall

Colliery Co., 209, 210, 218

K.I.

Battorworth v. Kelly, 411

V. Yorkshire (W. B.) Rivew

Board, 203, 343, 244, U*,

265, 311
Buxton V. Jamee, 413
Byron (Lord) v. Dagdale. 413
V. JohaatoB, 849, 853

Cable v. Bryant, 186, 197, 198, 305

V. Marks, 301

Cadbury v. Walker. 208
Cade V. Calfe. 464

V. Daly, 451, 458

Cadis Wsterworka Co. v. Bamett,

620, 637
Caird v. Sime, 410
Calcraft v. Guest, 606
Caldwell v. Baylis, 75

V. Kelkelly, 264

V. Maclaren, 229, 230

r. Vanvliasingen, 332, 344

Caledonian Rly. v. Colt, 166

V. Glmboig Union Fireclay Co.,

V. Solway Junction Rly., 088

V. Sprot, 213

V. Walker's Trustees. 204

Californian Fig Co., Rt, 362
Callow V. Young, 686
Calvert t>. Gason, 74

V. Gray, 852

Campana «. Webb, 643
Campbell v. Alkood, 49. 88, 83
V. Anatraliaa ProvUleat So-
ciety, 673. 676
V. Lang, 296

V. Paddington Corporation,

111, 161, 181. fsS, 294.
308, 309

V. Scott. 404

Campbell-Davya ». Lloyd, 308

Campbell's ease, 585

Campbell's Trustees v. Sweeney,
269, 270. 273

Campden Charities, Re, 598

Canadian Pacific Rly. v. Parke. 163

V. Roy, 161

Canbam v. Jones, 507

Cannon v. Trask, 575, 576

V. VUlars, 278, 288, 436

C»ptM V. Hntton, 429

CapiM V. Norwich and Spalding Rly..

Capeuloid, Re, 363

Cardiff, Mayor of. »'. Cardiff Water-
works Co., 26, !il, 112

Cardiff Rly Co. v. Taff Vale Rly.
Co.. 132

Cardigan (Lwl of) v, Armitage. 68

b

xviii

TABLE OF CASKS.

Canlinull r. Cariliiiall, «l«'>

r. MolyiUMix. N2, «7H

Cardwftll r. Midland lUy. Co., IL'O.
1.30

Carew, Kx parte, 651)

V. Y»t«». M4

Caribonnm Co. v. Le Courh, 460
Carlwle (Karl) r. Northampton

County Council, 222
Carlinle i-. .^^outh Kawtern Klv., 242,

244

Carlton llluHtratorHt'. Coleman, t),I8
Carlyon r. l^ovorinjj, 242, 244
Carmic'hael v. Kvans, 27, 530
Ounea v. NMbitt. 4fi3, 466, 47U
Cwrr v. Bath Gas Co., 157, 681

r. Crigp, .'l.'i!)

V. Foster. 11(2. 246,

»■. .Morice, 643, 654

Carron Iron Co. «. MacUren, II, 61 1,

613-617
( arrow r. Ferrier. 686, 6!t3
Cant t'. Bland Light Syudieato, ol8
Canbalton Park Estate, S«. 545
Cantain r. Taylor. 256
Carter r. Cropley, 524

V. Fey, 643, 644. 647

• f. Creat F.atttern Kly., 125

r. Robvrts. 680

f. Salmon, 30, 103

«'. 1'homaH. 84

Cartier v. Carlisle, 384, 385
Cartwricht, Be, 66

V, Last, 669

Cary r. Faden, 413
Cary-Elwes Contract, Rt, 123
Casaniajor r. Strode, 77, 644, 646
Ca«e r. Midland Ulv.. 24f . 83, 669
Ca»h r. Cash. 366. 461
Cawi r. Bailey, f'.")8
Cassella & Co.. /V, 362
Caasidy, Be, 642

CaateUi r. Cook, 6ul, 656, 676, 677
Catt V. Tonrle. 431, 458, 479
Cattermonl v. J«red, 436, 438, 461,
462

Catterson i'. Anglo-Foreign, &c.

Co., 3i)8, 383
Cattle r. Thorp, 4,53, 457
Catton f. Wild, 674
Cavan County Council t: Kane &

Co., 150, 304. 309, 310
Cave V. Horsell, 436, 438, 443
Cavendish f. Tarry. 463
Cawkwell v. Riuaell. 166, 246
Cellular Clothing Co. «. Haxton,

357. 369 I
Central London Kly. Co. i: City of

London Land T^:; ComisgionQrs,

229, 304,309 I

I t cntral .Suftar Factorica Co., Be, S20
Cerfle Hestaurant Co. ». LaTMT,

13. 620, 637
Ch.viwirk r. Marsdeii. 298
ChatTers v. Baker. 651
Chaliender t>. Boyle. S, 51S— 517
Chamber Colliery Co. v. Hopwood,
241

r. Koohdalc Canal Co., 221
Chamberlain's Whuf v. Smith, 80S
Chambrrlaino v. Cheatw, ke., RIy.

Co., 551
Chamberlayne v. Dummer. 86
Chanibers V. Manchester and Mil-
ford Rly., 568

V. Toynbee, 647

Champion t'. Birmingham Vinegar

Co., 509
Chance v. (i. W. Rly. Co.. 5r>2
Chandler r. Tliompson. 182
Chandos (I)uko of) v. Talbot, 62
Chauoi k t'. Hertz, 643, 649
Chantrey v. Dey, 395
Channel Coaling Co. v. Roaa, 610
Chaplin t>. Bamett, 670
Chaplin & Co. «. Westminster Corp.,

150—161, 204, 307
Chapman v. Auckland Union, 172,

261, 673
Chapman v. .Mason, 443
Chappell t'. Davidson, 40, 374, 648

V. (;ri(tith, 533

r. Sheard. 381. 407

(Charles f. Finchley Local Board, 156

V. Jonea, 642

V. Potttter, 498, 531

Charlton v. Newcastle, &*:, JUy.

Co., 558
Charrington ii. Wooder, 445
Charnock r. Court, 325
Chasemore v. Richards, 231, 238,
251

(.'hastey v. Ackland, 1U8
Chatteria v. laaaeaon, 373
Chatterton «. Cave, 403, 406, 414
(^haytor. Be, 67, 58
Chajrtor t>. Trotter, 58
Cheavin v. Walker, 378. 379
Chedworth, Lord, v. Edwards, 621
Chemische Fabrik Sandez t'. Bad-

ische Anilin, &c.. 644
Chester (Dean) v. Smelting Corp.,

167. 681. 689
Chesterfield (Earl) Settled Estates,

Re, 66, 67, 69
Chesterfield (Earl) i: Harris, 230
Chibneli •-. PauL 164. 206
Chichester Corporation «. Foator,
164, 310

I ChiU V. DoBite 24. 97, 49}. 49»

TAULC or c.

xu

Ck Ifon V. ProgreM I rinting Co.,
392

Chinnnck v. Hartley VVintley Rural

rniin.'il,
rhitty V. Bray. 436
Ch\ym V. Chirm. 3S8. 3«4
Ch <!»tt V. Hoffman. 330
Chorley Corporation v. Nightinffale.

304

Christ Church, Re, 695
Chrutie v. Davey, 204

t'. Tipper. 362

Chubb V. (Jrifflthg. 388
Churchward v. Reg., 439
Cbnrton v. Doo^w. MO, 371 461,
S3S. S33

City of London Lwd Tax Comn.
V. Central London Rly., M9, 304.

306

City and Sonth London Rly. v.

St. Mary Woohioth, 123
Civil Service Co-operative Society

V. General Steam Navigation

Co., 28

Civil Service Instrument Aaaocia-

tion V. Whitman, 21, 22. 36. 37
Civil Service Supply Auociation t-.

Dean, 367
Clar— -e Uly. v. Great North of

England Kly., 138
Clark V. Adie, 340

V. Clark, 448

V. Cogge, 287, 289

V. Jacques, 661

V. Lloyd's Bank, 204. 208

r. Royaton, 63

I'. School Board for Lmidon,

123, 144, 167
(Marke r. Clarke, 29

V. Ferguson, 345

V. Manchester, Sheffield and

Lincolnshire Rly., llg

V. Nicholg, 347

V. Price, 477

V. Rugge, 290

V. Skipper, 667

V. Somersetshire Drainage

Commissioners, 245

f. Wat kins, 462

Warke's Design, Re, 423

Clarkson v. Edge, 466

Chiudins Ash & Co. v. Mircha Co.,

365. 381
CUvering v. Clavering. 68
Claxton «. Choton. 243
Clay (Henry) b Co. v. Godfrsy

Phillips. 40. ^HA, 3.S7, MS
Clay V. RuSord, 569
Clayton v. Day, 358
V. Le Roy, SIC

Cleaver v. Bacon, 444
Cteeve v. Mahauy, 178, 200
Clegg V. ('iegg, 96

V. Edmondson, 21, 23, 50, 337

t'. Hands, 446, 482

I'. Rowland, 57, 58

Clements v. Welles. 444, 486. 645
ClewM V. Staioidthta* PoMwita Co.,
183

Clifford V. Hoare. 278
— ;— V. Holt, 189
Clifton V. Robinson, 676
Climie v. Wood, 70
Clinton v. Bennett, 15
Clowes V. Bock, 104

V. Staffordshire Potteries Co.,

158, 260

Clydebank Shipbuilding Co. v. Don
Jos6 Castaneda, 4M— 438

Coats V. Chadwiek. 341

t'. Clarence Rly., 160

I'. Herefordshiro County Coun-
cil, 298—301, 306, 665, 668

Cockell t!. bacon, 538

Cockrane v. Macnish, 359, 379

V. Martin, 330

Coffin V. Coffin, 31. 48, 49, 86

Cohen r. Polanid, 43

«. WiiUnion. 833

Colbum r. Simma. 38, 40. 384. 417

Cok V. Forth. 64

V. Green, 64

V. Peyson, 56, 71

('olebeck v. Girdler's Co., 216

<.'olebume «. CoIaiwnM, II, 810, 343,
648

ColefpaYO o. Diaa Santos. 60
Coleman v. West Hartlepool Rly.,
639

Coleridge. Re, 623

Coles V. Simms, 23, 468, 480

Collard t-. Allison, 348

V. Cooper, 649

c. Marshall, 6, oOC. 51 1

Colley V. Hart. 614. 515, 516

Collins V. Caatle. 404

». Oreen, 341

V. Lamport, 843

V. Locke, 461

r. Plumb, 430

r. Slade, 278, 282. 445

Colling Co. t\ Reeves. 377

V. Walker. 377

Collis V. Cater, 391

V. Laugher, 192

Colliton V. Warren. 46, 647

Colh V. Home and Culooisl Stores.
20. 32. 38. 43, 48. 173—181. 183,
184. 180, 190—182. 107, 109. 203.
339^ 873, 373

b 2

u

TABLI or CASES.

Colninn r. Ewtern t'ouutiM BIt.,

Colonial i,if«< ImuranM «. Uonw
and t'.ilonial lnHurance Co., fmz

r<ilK<>ii f. WillianiH, .'»38

I'olwcll r. St. I'iUiiTMDktriet Coun-
cil. 3.->. ll(t. 153. 103, 1S5, lea,
204, 207, M'2

Conibinatira Hub* Co. v. tiMbrook,
341

CommiMioner* of Public Works

<rape Colony; v. UtgM, IM
ConimiMHioiierH of !*evren for Eimx

« 'oni iiatfii ifi Ui'H Pdt rolfx. Rf,3«2, 363
Comimiiliiu (If Mocttiiibiriue r. Uri-

tinh South Aliira Co.. 12
»:oni|itoii r. Huh»rd». INH, 180
Conaclier v. Cnnacber, flSO
Concaris r. Dunera, SIS
Connolly V. Conanmera Co., SfiS
Count r. Ilarria, .536, 645

V. Barr. 655

Constable and Cranawiok. St, 78
ConMilidatfd Car Co. «. CkBM, 839,

340, 341, 342
Continental Tyre Co. ». Uestli, 467,

460

Conway v. Webb, 383, 32S, 3M

V. Whaler, M

CoolKardi« (ioUminea, B«, A70

( ook r. Hath (Mayor, &c., of). 111,

I.-.O. 30!t
Coolif V. ForbcH. 154, 2(K»

i: London County Council, 119

125

r. Whaley, 85

Cooper e. Barber, 234

». Crabtrue, 103, 104, 153, 178

V. Ciordon, 524

V. Hubbuck, 180, 191, 194, 241

t'. Milburn, 194

V. Page, 530

V. .•ihroiwhire Union Rly., 574

V. Stt viiiH, 391

■ I'. Straker, 189

V. VVhittiiigbaio, 9, 18, 38,

354, 411. 418, 665
Coote J. Ingram, 667
Cope V. CreMingham, 006
— — r. Sharp, 106
Copestake ; . West Suaaex Count.v

Council, 'MH')
Coppinger r. (irbhins. 51, 60, 75

V. Sheehan, 269, 273

Corbett v. South Eastern Rly. Co.,

653. 568
<'"r»l!i I'. Gray, 407, 417

V. WaU, «, 609, 010

Corush V. New, 70

Coraellia v. London ( 'ouuty Council,

303, 303
Cory V. HarriMin, 464
— «•. Thamaa Iroa Co., 970
r. Yarmoath and Norwleb

Kly., 19, 29. 313
Conena, Ke, 524
Cotehing v. liaiwett, 173
('oteaworth v. .StitphutiH, H|i)
Cother v. MidlancI Klv., 133, 662
Cotton, Hr, 539

r. (iillard. 360, 508

CoakoD V. OoiikoB, 010
Conhon, Bt, 660

Courage r. Carpenter, 440, 440. ~,
479

Coiirtaiild V. Legh, 19t

Courtown (LenO Ward, 60, 60,

79

CouttK I', (lorhani. 185

Coventry v. L,ondon, Brighton, &c.,

Bly., 130
Cowea U. D. C. v. Southampton

Steam Pa<'ket Co.. 312—314
Cowley (Earl) i-. Byaa, 168, 8.16

i: Cowley, 637

V. Welleiiley, 53, 54

Cowling V. HigginHon, 282, 287
Cowper I'. LaidTer. 20. 32. 34. 35, 43.

44, 178, 183. 671, 672, 673
Cox and Neye. Bt, 484, 480
Craeknall o. Janaon, 41
Craig t;. Dowding, 013, 014, 016,
618

f. Greer, 433, 441, 495

Crane v. Priee, 340

Craimtoun (Lord) v. Johnstoue, U.

628

Craven v. Kay, 669

Crawford v. Hornsea, tte., Staam Co.

200, 673

f. North EMtem Bly., 060

Cregan v. CuUen, 60

Crisp I'. Holdcn. 27, 477, 020, 026

Critcholl V. London and South

Western Rly. Co., 609
Crockford v. Alexander, 77
Croft V. Day, 358, 366
Crofta V. Haldane, 181
Cromford and High Peak Kly.

Stockport, &c., Rly., 28
Crompton v. Lea, 204
Crookes t'. Petter, 370
Cropper Minerva Co. v. Cropper.

378, 380
Croeafield (Joseph), Be, 362, 363

V. Caton, 385

Croaaley v. Beverley, 352

V. Derby Uae Light Co., 21,

38,347,303.

TAMLI flV OAIM.

ssi

CroHlry v. Pixon. 346

- f- LiKhtowlcr. 239. 240, 241,

243. 244. 240. 2«0. S«l, SM
( nmman v. Bristol mmI Sontb

Walw Rly.. 168
Croteh «. Arnohl. 374. 3Sf, 401
Croneh v. Crouch, 437
Cnwder v. TinUw. |05
Crowther t<. United FkniUe Tuba

«'o.. 515. 5I«
Croywiale v. f iinburjr U. D. C, 17i
Croxoii, Ke. 03»

<"riinihi«< r. WuliHf>iKl I, H.. 210
Crump f. Laiiili<-rt, 2(K» — 2<»4. 207
208

Cruttwell V. Lye, 461, 532
Cubitt r. M«ZM. 397, SM

V. Porter. 216

Cuddon V. Morl«y. 61, 76

Cuff I'. London "aiid Connty Land

Co.. 568. 673
I'uU and Rooke r. Oreat Ewteni

Riy.. Co., 137
CnmminH v. Perkinn, 6, 6M

V. Stewart, 346

Cvnder «. Lerwill, 369. Sit. SIS
CanUffe r. Whaller, 306

^'^"L^MS "

( urran v. Treleaven, i$i

CurriP t-. ConHolidatad Kent Col-

lieriee Co., 619
Curriers' Co. v. Corbett, 46, 178
Curtice v. London City and Midland

Bank, 663
Curtki, Be, 634

». Cntta. S45

V. Keateven, 800, 306

t'. Piatt. 342

Curwen v. Salked, 316
t'ufhbert v. Fane, 658
CycIiRts Touring C3ab «. TomUaMn.

670, 576

D. «. A. k Co., 68S — 687

Da^Kett v. Ryman, 464

Daimler Motor Co. v. London

Dair .!er Co., 384
Dalby v. Hirst, 63
Dales r. VVeaber, 463
Daljflish V. Jarvie, 346. 631. 676
Dallimore v. Willianis, 323
D'Almaine v. Boosev. 4O7
DAlmer «. Daahwood, 76
D«lton V. Angua, 181, ao», Sll, 212,
S13, 214

I'. Gill, 75

Daly V. Edwards, 449
Damper v. Baaaett, 28S, 298
Daaee «. GoUini^kMB. 821. SS3

Daad v. KingMote. 279, 284
DmM ». Fwmion. 46. 192

V. Wbitehouse, 375

Daniels. K», 58
Dann v. Spurrier. 36
D'Arry r. Adamson. 601. tOt

r. Askwith. 55. 208

Darby 1: U'hltaker. 479
Dare v. lleathcoate, 287
Dariey Mate C^mtry *. MitelMU.

210, 217
Partford Brewery Co. v. Till, 448
Darvall i'. l)ouf(all. 206
Dashwood v. Mainiia«-. 52, 53, 87.

58. 96. 97
Dangers r. Rivaz. 524. 596
Dnenport i-. Davenport. 92

I', .lepson. 343. 345

V. Kyland. 673

Davey (Lord) v. Askwitli, 62
D«Tid and Matthewa. fy, 272, 839
Daridaon v. Leslie, 688

V. Sun Fan Co., 351

Davies r. ("lough. 506

r. City of London Corporation,

140. 141

V. Davies, 42, 66, 432. 430,

460. 461, 465
V. 6aa Light and Coke Co.,

42. 102, 498, 499. 829.

557, 609

V. Hodgson, 532

I'. Lowen, 4.'')6

V. Mitkuna. 433

V. Marshall, 23. 37. 174. 188

r. Sear, 21, J6, 289

r. Thomas, is

V. Townsend, ■. lO

V. Williama. 24S

Davia v. Araer, 401

V. Benjamin, 392

I'. Bromley Corporation, 168

V. Fonuan, 432, 477, 482

V. .lenkins. 586

t». Duke of Marlborough, 74

V. Marrable, 179

r. Masou. 462

». RlMyader, 692, 693

». Town Propertiea Corpora-
tion, 188. 198. 474

V. Trehame. 218. 219

Daw V. Eley. 351. 685, 693
Dawes. Ex parte, 437

V. Bagnall, 146

V. Hawking, 299, 301, 303

V. Tredwell, 437

Dawkins v. Aatiobat, 601, 603, 604

V. Simonetti, 818, 819

DawaoB «. B««m, S7S, 838. 647,
68(^878

xxii

TABU 09 OABU.

Damon v. Bingley, U. D. C. 262, 263

V. Ciroat Northern aiul City

Kly. Co.. 121, 166

t'. Paver, 157. 174, 253. 690

V. Thompson, 634

Day t'. Brownrigie, 6, 3ti6, 638

V. Davieit, 332, 339

V. Longhiuvt-., 629

r. Merry, 86

V. Snee, 37. 681

Deacon v. South Eastem Rly. Co.,
290

Dean r. flpnnett. rf2r>, r,2(i

V. Thwaite, 38, 145

De Bemalea v. New York Herald,
644

Deere v. Gneat, 105, 107

De Falbe, 67, 68, 89

De Freyiie (Lord) v. Johnatone,

066

Defries r. Mihie. !>7
De Kuyppr c. Bain. .".77
Delalield i: (lanaheus. 62.-)
Delte V. Delaniotte, 417
De Manneville v. De .Muniieville. 634
De MattoB v. Gibson, 429, 433, 473,
480

Demerara Electric Liithtine Co. v.
White, 163

Denaby and Cadebv Collieries Co.
r. Anson, 268, 269. 270, 273

f. Yorkshire Miners Associa-
tion. 324

Dence r. Mason, 369

Dendy v. Henderson, 452, 453

Denman v. Westminster Corpora-
tion. 140, 141

De Xicolls V. Abel, 498

Denley v. Blore. 331

Dent V. Auction Aiart Co., 177

1'. Turpin, 376, 384

Dental Manufacturing Co. e. Trey,
357, 376, 412

Denton v. Denton, 71

Denys v. Schuckburgh, 95

Derby Motor Cab Co. v. Crompton,
438, 4t3

Derbyshire County Council r. Derby

Corporation. 267
1 >e Rutzen v. Llovd, 315, 316
Dement Boiling Milk Co., Re, 617,

620

De Salis v. CrosB:iii, fill
Deschanips t?. Miller, 12
De Tastet v. Bordenave, 656
Deverges v. Sandeman, 539
De Vitre v. Betts, 386, 674
Devonnld v. Rosser, 439. 481
Devonport (Mayor, acc., of) v.
Plymouth Tramways Co., Ill

Devonport (Mayor. &c.. of) r.

Tozer, 8, 9, 110, 111, 144
Devonshire (Duke) r. Brookahaw.

202, 446

■ • «•. Pattinson, 230

Devonshire r. Simmons. 447
Dewar t'. City and ."Suburban Race-
course (;o.. 204, 206
Dibden v. Skirrow, 312 — 314
Dick V. Haslam. 353
Dickons v. Lee, 31
r. National Telephone Co.. 18.

Dickenson r. Grand .Junction Canal

Co., 238, 493, 494, 680
Dicks r. Brooks. 418

c. Yatef^. 374. 392. 492

Dickson (Alexander) & .^ons v.

Alexander. 366
Diestal t». Stevenson, 466, 467. 468
Dillv V. Doig. 412
Diniech r. Corlett. 266, 467
: Dimiind r. Xcwburn, 66
Di.\on r. Dixon. 531. 641
r. Metropc.litan Board of

Works. 255
Dockrell v. Dougall, 513
Dodd V. Burchell, 275, 289
V. Salisbury and Yeovil Rly.,

134

Doe r. Bird. 65. 446

r. Bristol and Exeter Rly.. 132

V. Earl of Burlington, 61. 64

V. Hampson. 305

— — V. Jackson, 65
V. Jones, 64

V. Leeds and Bradford Rly.

Co., 125
V. Lock, 54

V. North Staffordshire Rly.,

117. 125, 129, 132, 133
Doe t'. Pearsey, 305
— — t'. Price, 54

V. Wilson. 56

Doherty r. Allmann. 4. 15. 19. 33.

35, 44, 48, 51, 02. 64. 65.

78. 441, 493, 494, 49,5,

496, 672

V. Thompson, 11

Dominion of Canada Trading Syn-
dicate V. Brigstock, 5R3
Dominion Coal Co. r. Dominion Iron
I Co., 4,32, 478
Dominion Cotton .Mills r. Amyot,

573, .575, 570, 578
Donnell t'. Bennett, 478, 482
Donnelly v. Adama, 276—277, 893

V. Donnelly, 639

Doolittle «. WattoD, M2
Doran «. Carroll, 48, 49. 109

TABLB Of CASKS.

Dorcheiter (Mayor, ite., of) v.
Ensor, 310

Dore V. Pecorini, 200
Dottridge V. Crook, 450
Douglas V. BayOM, 432, 439
Dover Si Co. v. Nfimbeifer Fabrik,
423. 426

Dover Co. v. New Townend Cycle
Co., 349

Dover 6aa Co. v. Mayor, &o., of

Dover, 206
Dover Harbour (Warden of) v.

London, Chatham and
Dover Rly., 663
1'. South Eastern Rly., 114.

490. 569
Dowden r. Pook. 450. 4a 1. 455
Dowliiig V. Betjeman, 20, 627
— — I'. Pontypool, ice., Rly., 114,

119. 132, 133
Downahire (Marquis) «. O'Brien, 319

V. Sandya, P6, 87, 90

Doyle V. Munti, AW

Dreyfus i'. Pernvian Gnano Co.,

671, 673

DrUBeU «. lanaeed Cake Co., 013,
514, 517

Drury v. Army and Navy Co-
operative Supply Co., "16

Dry Dock Corponrfaon of London,
Re, 619

Dubowski V. Goldstein, 455, 460
Du Cros (\V. and G.) v. Gold, 357
Du Cros' Trade Mark, Re, 359
Du Pasquier r. Thompson, 15
Ducketts V. \Miitehead, 356
Dudden v. Guardians of dttttoii

Union, 238, 251
Dttder v. Amsterdsmsch Trbstees, 11
Dudgeon v. Thompson, 340, 344,

345. 352

Dudley Canal Co. v. Grazebrook, 221
Dudley (Corporation of) v. Dudley's

Trustees. 228
Duffln V. Mexican Gold Co., 557
Du^ale V. Roberston, 217
Duignan v. Walker, 453. 457
Duke V. Taylor, 19
Dummer v. Corporation of Chippen-

h«n, 6S6
Dn^hy v. Montreal Li^t Co., 117,

Doncan v. Lockoruic, 330

*. Louch, 293

Dunhill V. North Eastern Rly. Co..
555

Dnnlop Pnemnatio Tyre Co. r. Diin-
iup Mutur Co., 364, 331,
58S

V. Holbom Tyre Co., 338

Dnnlop Pnenmatic Tyre Co. «.
Hubbard, 343, 346

V. Moselev. 332, 338, 340, 341

V. Neal, 105, 338

V. Selfridge & Co., 459, 482

I'. Stone, 347

• V. Talbot. 511

Dunn r. Bryan, 89
Dnnnioliff t>. Mallet, 330
Dunning v. Grosvenor Dairies, 1S7,
681

Dunsany v. Dunne, 97
Dnrell v. Pritchard, 44, 45

Durham (Bishop of) v. Corporation

of Xewcastle. 82
Durham and Sunderland Rly. v.
Walker. 275, 279, 283

V. Wawn. 72

Durrant v. Branksome U. D. C,

171. 240. 262
Dyke ». Taylor. 2, 14
Dynevor (Lard) v. Tennant, 283
Dysart (Earl) r. Hammerton tt Co.,

312, 313. 314
Dyson t-. Att.-CJen.. 609

Eaciius v. Moss. 109

Eaden r. Firth, 26

Eardley v. Lord Granville. 54, 60,
61, 73. 106

East V. Berkshire Connty Council,
299, 300, 305, 306

V. Harding. 56

East Anglian Rly. v. Eastern Coun-
ties Rly., 566

East London Rly. Co. r. Thames
Conservators, 145. 158

Eastern South African Telegraph
Co. V. Cme Town Tramwam 161.
255

Eastern Telegraph Co. «. Dmt, 449
East Freemaatle Corporation v.

Annois, 158. 161. 165
East and West India Docks, tie.,

Rly. f. Dawes. 138
East and West In^ Docks Co. v.

Gattke, 167
East Lancashire Rly. «. Hattersley,

19, 27, 28, 655
Eastman Photograpbic Co. v. Comp-
troller General. 362
East Molesey L. B. v. Lambeth

Waterworks, 060
Eastt'R r. Russ. 433
Kastoii V. Isted, 190
Hast wood V. Lever, 433, 435, 480
Eaton r. Swansea Wirtnrwoika Co.,

192

Eooles Corporation v. Honth Lan-
cashire iVamways, 554

XXIV

TABLS OP CABU.

EeelMiaatical Commiiaionen *

Kino, 176, 179, 180, 195

V. Wodehouge, 80, 81, 82

Eckeraley v. Mersey Docks, 631
Ecroyd v. Coulthard, 230
Edelsten v. Edeteten, 382—386

V. 378

Eden v. Foster, 595
— — ». N. E. Bly. Co.. 286. 227
Edenborough v. Archbishop of Can-

terbnnr, 698
Edge V. Nicholls, 357, 369
Edginton v. Edginton, 638
Edinburgh HagktrstM v. filwskie.

316

Edmbnrgfa. 4»., Tnunways o'o. v.

Black. 131
Edinburgh Water Trustees v. Som-

merrifie, 231, 237
Edison v. Holland, 352
Edison-Bell Phonograph v. Bern-
stein, 344

V. Hough, 347, 349

r. Smith. 39

Edlin f. Pneumatic Tyre Cycle Co.,

515. 517
Edmund v. Martell. 60. 61
Edmundfion v. Render, 453, 462, 463
Edridge v. Kdridge. 622
Edwards v. Spaight, 564
— - V. Standard Rolling Co., 545
Edwards' Trade Mark, Be. Ml, 3«3.

372

Egbert v. Short, 609. til

Ehrhck v. Ihlee. 330

Ehrman i'. Bartholomew. 451, 482

Eldeston v. Crossley, 234

Electric Telegraph Co. v. Brett, 330

Electromobile Co. v. British Elec-
tro mobile Cr 368, 6S2

Eley V. Read, 542

Elias V. Griffith, 60. 79, 95

— — V. Snowdea Slate Quarries. 57,
68

EUiman v. Canrington. 7, 4. 8, 4 s2
Elhott (Trade Extension Co.) v.

Expansion of Trade Co., 368, 582
Elhott V. Brown, 631
». Xorth Eastern Rly„ 211

213,228 '
Elliotson V. Feetham, 208
Ellis e. Banyard, 311

V. Bromley Local Board. 58

■ e. Eilir, 632 -

e. Glover, 70. 77

V. Grey, 7

— — »•• National Union, &c., 518
Elliston V. Reacher, 19. 21, 23 33

35^44. 7S, 434, 44!, 4SG, iSS.'isd.

490, 491, 494, 496. 500, 672

Elmhiist V. Spencer, 27,
Elmore v. Pine. 671
Elmslie v. Beresford, 528

V. North Western Rly., 135

V. Boursier. 337

Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron Co..

466, 467, 468, 469
Elsas V. Williams. 362, 679
EMon e. Hampataad Corporation,

Elsey V. Adams, 654
Elves V. Crofts, 458
Elwell V. Crowther, 157
Ehres v. Maw. 66, 67

V. Payne, 27, 28. 29, 318

Emanuel v. Symon, 10, 11
Embrey ». Owen, 231, 233, 234, 236
239

Empire and Guaiantee Insurance

Co., Be, 663
England. Bank of, v. Anderson. 629

V. Booth, 629

V. Moffat, 621

England v. Carling, 529
Eni^ V. Metropolitau Water
Board, 7, 20. 34. 36,
44, 211, SS». 251,
252

- — Vestry of Camberwell, 648
Enghsh and American Machinenr

Co. V. Gaie. 516
Ennor v. Barwell, 241
Eno V. Dunn, 363
Ernest v. Vivian, 21
Errington t>. Birt, 202, 446, 447
— — K. MetropoUbm Dktriot Bly..

117, 228 '
Escott V. Mayor of Newport, 119, 143
Espley V. Wilkes. 290
Estcourt V. Eatcourt Hop Essence

ijOtf 381, 388
Eton College v. Great Western Rlv

133 ' '

Evan V. Corporation of Avon, 584
Evans, Re, 685

t;. Coventry, 537. 645, 646

V. Davis, 444, 645

V. Hughes. 534

■ XiOvy. 449

— ''"g''*'*®'"' i"y- 171,

I'. :jorrig, 389

; . Smallcombe. 561, 562

Evelyn's (Lady) case, 92
E\ entt ti. Prythergh, 519
Eversfleld v. Mid-Sussex Rly., 134
Everton v. lH>ngmore, 453
Ewart V. Belfast Poor Lmm Onw

dians. 262
«■ Codmiw, 24^ 289

TABtB OF CASES.

XXV

Exchange Co. f. Central News, 389.
504

V. Gregoiy, 389, 416, 504

Howard Preu Agency, 405

Eyre V. New Foreat Highway Board,
M7, 301. S07

P. V. F., 635, 636

Facsimile Letter Printing Co. i'.

Facsimile Typewriting Co., 367
Fairclough v. Manchester Ship Canal
Co., 692

». Marshall, 546

Fairlie v. Booamr, 407
Fairthorne v. Wwton, SS8
Faloke «. Gray. «27
Fanahaw «. London, to.. Dairy Co.,

667

Farbenfabriken v. Bowker, 349

V. Dawson, 344

Farmer t>. Waterkw and City Rly.

Co., 122, 124
Farquhar v. Newbury B. D. C. 896,

298, 299—303
Farrant v. Lovell, 48, 71, 76, 79

V. Olmius, 469

Farrar v. Cooper, 7. 532, 631

V. Farrars, Limited, S41

Farrer v. Close, 324
Farrow t'. Vansittart, 280
Faulder v. Rush, 370

r. Rnahton. 381

Fawoett v. Laurie, 559, 560, 563

Fay V. Prentice, 209

Fear v. Morgan, 190, 193, 285

tj. Vickers, 230, 234

Fearon v. Ayleeford, 448

V. Mitchell, 318

Featherstone v. Cooke, 578
Featherstonhaugh t>. Lee Moor Por-

eelain Clay Co., 569
Feehter e. Montgomery, 433, 481
Fell, Ex parte, sio
Feb V. Hedley, 370
Fennall v. Brown, 652
Fenner v. Wilson, 30, 183, 6S9. MO
Fennessy v. Clark, 666

t>. Day and Martin, 40, 665

Fenwick v. East London Rly., 162,
203

I'ergnson v. Malvern U. D. C, 256
remnd «. Corporation of Bradford,
S36

V. Hamer, 679

V. Wilson, 53

.'ettes v. WUliams, 387, 419

Field. Ex parte, 622

V. Carnarvon and Lianberis

Field V. Debenture Corporation. 541
Fielden v. Cox, 7, 17, 39, 297, 306

t'. Lancashire and Yorkshire

Rly., 647

V. Slater, 447, 486

Fielding v. Morley Corporation, 173
Filder t>. London, Brighton, &c.,
Rly., S.'-.O ^ •

Finch v. Creat Western Rly., 280
Finchley J:iectric Light (^o. r.

Finchley U. D. C, 141, 142, 304
Finck v. L. & W. Rly., 132, 133
Fine Cotton ."^pinners Assoc. r. Ilar-

wood & Co., 365, 367. 581, ,-)83
Firth V. Ridley, 477
Fisher v. Apollinaris Co., 639

V. Jackson, 626, 527

V. Keane, 602

V. Prowse, 303

Fitch V. Rochfort, 677
Fitz V. lies, 447
Fitzgerald, Re, 10, 524
— — V. Firbank, 239, 260
Fitzhardinge (Lord) v. Piircell, 101
102, 109, 268, 273, 274, 295, 306
Fitzwilliam (Lord) v. Moon, 82
Flamang's case, 101
Flavel t'. Harrison, 378
Fleet V. Metropolitan Asylums

Board, 202
■Fleminff v. Bishop of Curlisie, 92

t). Hislop. 20')

Fletcher I'. Bealey, 17. 157, 158

V. Birkenhead Corporation.

211

». Glasgow GaaCommiasioneTB,

336

V. GreM '."estem Rly., 226

V. Rocii , 12, 619

— — V. Smitii, 254

Flight V. Thomas, 192

Flint, &c.. Re, 10

Flitcroft's case, 563

Floienee e. Mallinson, 39

Flower ». Local Board oi Ijow Lev-
ton, 172

V. London, Brighton, and

.*iou*h Coast Rly., 117

F"'oley V. Addenbrooke, 67

r. Wontner, 524

Foley's Charity Trustees r. Dudley

Corporation, 111, 141, 297, 3(t'
Follett V. Jeffreys, 506
Fooka V. Wilts, Somerset and Wey.

month Rly.. 118, 124
Ford V. Foster, 380, 381, 386, 386

ti. C.ye, 28, 29

V. Tennant, 505

V. Tynte, 67, 86. 87. 88

ForrigB BoadboMen v. Pastor, 630

TABLE

Foreman c. Free Fighera of Wiit-

stable, 267
Formby v. Barker, 19, 33, 35, 44,

78. 441, 484. 493. 672
Forrest o. Maneheater, Sheffield,
and Linooln^ire Rly.,
M9, M2, 569

V. Merry, 46")

Forrester r. .'loin-s, 668

ForteKcup r. I.ostwithit-l Rlv. ('o.,

431

Forwood V. G. N. Rly. Co., rtr>3
Pom v. Horbottle, 573
Poster V. BirminghMn, Wolver-
hampton, &c.. Rly., 430,

499

r. Coles, 565

V. Honisby, 168

»'. London, Chatham and

Dover Rly., 554, .ISS

V. Warblingtoii IT. I), c., 109,

239, 266, 262, 271, 272
Foster and Dicksee v. Hastings Cor-
poration, 437
Fotherjfill v. Rowland, 478, 627
Foundlmg Hospital r. (iarrett, 498
Pox V. Astrachan Co., 353

«'. Scard, 465, 471

Fradella i'. Weller, 38, 40, 417
Francis r. Hayward, 109
Francome r. Francome, 652
PrankUn v. Bank of England, 621
Fraser v. Fear. 9, 17, 240, 264

V. Whalley, 675, 576. 657, 658,

675

Frearson v. Imb, 335, 336, 349
Frechette v. St. Hyacinthe, 246
Freeman r. Chester Rnral Council,

632

f. Fox, 463

Fiemington KSehool, Re, 525
French «. Macale, 465, 466, 469, 470
Frewen v. Philipps, 190, 193
Frewin v. Lewis. 113, 168, 168, 588
Frith r. Frith, 428, 431, 432, 477,
479

Fritz V. Hobson, 294, 310, 673

Frompton v. Tiffin, 306

Frost r. OUve Series Pubhshinff Co.,

390

Fruit and Vegetable Association r.

Kekewich, 575
Fuller t: Taylor. 657
Fullerton, He. 93

FiiUwood r. Fullwood, 25, 37, 360,

365, 381. :t82
Fynn, He, 634

Qado v. Thompaon. 450, 464

Ot" CASEh.

Oalbraith v. Poynton, 66, 75
(iale c. Abbott, 25, 36, 38, 46, 152,
178, 189

V. Rhymney Gaa and Water

("o., 264

Galloway v. Mayor, &e., of London,

113, 116, 118
Gandy Bell Manufacturing Co. v.

Fleming, 388
(iann r. Fishers of Whitstable, 267,

268, 273
Garbutt v. Fawcus, 13, 6l»7
(tard V. Commissioners of Sewers,

140

Gardiner v. Griffith, 543

Gardner v. Hodipson's Kingston

Breweries Co., 241, 284,

286

V. .lay, 665

V. M'Cutcheon, 528

(iarrard r. Lauderdale, 623
(iarrett r. Banstead and Epsom

Rly., 430, 431
Garstin v. Asplin. 103
Garth v. Cotton, 71, 89, 90, 92, 94
Gartside v. Ontram, 604
Gasfcell V. Lane. anA Cheshire Miners

326, 327
(iaskin v. Balls, 6, 45, 433, 500
Cas Light and Coke Co. r. St. Mary

Abbott's Vestry, 164, 310
Gaunt t>. Fynney, 24, 46, 204
Gaved v. Martyn, 233, 238, 242. 248,

249

Gayford v. Moffat, 285, 287
Gaynor v. Gaynor, 632
Geary v. Norton, 40, 382. 387
(ieddis V. Proprietors of Bann

Reservoir. 158
f;ee r. Pritcliard, 408, 409
General Accident Association Co. r.

Noel. 454, 470
General Bill Posting Co. v. Atkinson.

452

General Estates Co. v. Beaver, 312,
313. 314

(ieneral Investment Co. «. General
Reversionary Co.. 582

General Reversionary and Invest-
ment Co. r. (ieneral ReversionMT
Co., .368

Cent V. Harrison. 96

Georg Schicht, &c.. Re, 363

Geriud v. Cooke, 279

Gennaine r. London Exhibitions,
204

German i: Chapman, 434, 435, 444,
495

German Date Coffee Co., Be, 670
Genrard v. O'Reilly. 37. 460. 4e»

TiMLM ^

(>eryua v. Edwards, 4S8
GMtetner, Be, 364, SAB
Gibbingk v. Hungerford, 169, 244,
245, 263

Gibbon v. Puddin^ton Vestry. 141
(iiblan v National Amalgamated

Labourers Union, &c., 325
Gibson V. Campbell, 33S

V. Doeg, 433

V. Goldsmid, 428

e. Smith. 48, 49

Giles r. Hart. 453
Gill »'. Dickinson. 220

■ I'. Newton. .539

I'. Philips. 354. 355
Cillett V. (iillett, 620
Gillette Safety Uazor Co. r. Oamage,

333, 346. 347, 3S3, 639, 641
GilKng V. Gr»y, 80, 803, 807, •72,

673. 674

Gillingham v. B«ddow, 372, 533,

534

Oiugell r. Stepney B. ('.. 316
Gladdon i: Stonenian, 5 1 it
Gladstone r. Musurus Bey. 8. 6,30

I'. Ottoman Bank. 7, 13

(ilamorgan Coal Co. f. S. Wales

Miners, 325
Glaaoott v. Lang, 2, 678
Glasdir Copper Works, lU, 68
Glasmw (Lord Provost of) e. Fkirie,

isl, 884, 887
Glaase «. HHshall, 621. 629
Glassington r. Thwaites. 336
Glaye v. Harding. 186. 188
Ohdhill t'. British Perforated Paper

Co.. 381
Glen V. Gregg. 525, 597
Olmny «. Smith. 360, 368
GlenTUle «. Selig Polyscope Co..

391

Cilenwood Lumber Co. «. PhiUips,

109

GloBBop r. HestoB, tte.. Board of

Health. 262
C.loiieeKter Bank ». Rudry Steam

Co., 544
Glover v. Coleman, 192
Glyn V. HoweU, 38, 72, 145
Glynn r. Gilbaid. 684
(iodden v. Hythe Burial Board,

637

Godfrey v. Poole, 524

V. Watson. 75

Godwin v. Sehweppes. 185, 186
Goldfoot V. Welch, 642
Gold Hill Mines Co., Bp, 6!17
Gold Reefs of Western AustraUa v.

Datmon, 570
GoMsmUl «. G. E. Ry., 317

CASM. ixvii

Goldamid v. Tunbridge Wells Com-
missioners, 23, 155, 156, 239, 240,
243, 24S, 260, 26:

Goldsmiths' Co. v. West Metro-
politan RIy., Co., 138

(^lolilstone V. WilUiuns, Deaoon &
Co.. .506

Gonty V. M. S. & L. RIy . 554. .555
Gooch t'. Marshall. 663. 684, 686
Goodale v. Goodale, 629
Goodfollow V. Prince, 370, 376

V. Nelson Line, 578

Goodhart v. Hvett, 288, 418. 664
Goodman v. Kuie, 77, 543, 644

V. Whitcomb, 535

Goodright v. Vivian, 54

(ioodson V. Richardson, 44, 45, lO.^t,

107, 114, 306
Goodtitle v. Alker, 306
Goodwin v. Fielding, 627
Goold V. Great Western Deep CoiU

Co., 59
Goose V. Bedford, 204
(Jophir Diamond Co. v. Wood, 464
(iordon i\ Cheltenham RIy , 22, 23

r. St. Mary Abbotts, 141

V. Smart. 446

Gorges v. Stanfleld. 56

Gormg V. Goring, 62

Gort (Lady) v. Oark, 803

Gorton «. Smart, 201

Gosnell v. Aerated Bread Co., 155

Gottgh V. Wood, 70

Goniton v. London Architectural

Co., 558
Gower v. Eyre, 56
Goiney v. Bristol Trade, &e..

Society, 320, 324
Grace v. Newman, 391
Grafton v. Watson, 426
Graham v. Campbell, 29, 183, 649,

659, 634
Gramaphone Co., Be, 362, 363
V. Magaaine Holder Co., 488.

426

Gramaphone Typewriter Co. v.

Stanley, 677
Grand Canal Co. e. McNaaaee, 48,

51, 64

Grand Hotel Co. Caledonia Springs

V. Nelson, 359
Grand Junction ran.al Co. v. Dimes,
644, 690

t'. Petty. 298, 566. 566

V. Shugar, 45, 14A, 155. 158,

238, 252

C.ran'l --.nction WaterTork? v.

Hampton D. C, 8, 9, 610
Gravity v. Barnard, 86, 4S7, 4SS.

461

TABLE OF CASKS.

liray v. AUiHon, 6(H) — (i02

V. Lewiw, ST"), r>"s

— ^^^r. Liverpool u .1 Bury Rly.,

Gray f. Trinity CoU.. Dublin. 684,

Great Central Rly. To. v. Balby-with-

Hextliorpe ("onnty Coun-
oil. 298. rir>4. flfiS

V. Midland Kly. (o., 137,

571

Groat Eastern Rly. (ioldgmid,

317, 318, 319
Great Northern Rly. f. Eastern
Counties Rly., 572

• v. Harrison, 439

— — r. East and West India Docks.

X. Kly. Co. and (i. C. Rly. Co.,
Jlf, 571 '
G. N. Rly. Co. t'. xM'Alister. 278
threat Northern and Citv Hlv «

Tillett. 128 ^
Great North of Enghuid Rly. v.

( larenoe Rly., 107
(;re.-it \()rth-\Ve«t Central Rlv. t-

Cliarlebois. ,5.53
Creatrcx v. (Ireatrex, 498, ,531

■ 1: Hayward, 247

Great Torriiigton Conservators f.

Moore Stevens, 229, 230
Great Western Rly. v. Bennett, 222
229, 227
r. Birmingham and Oxford
Junction Rly., 2, 475
■ — — r. Blades, ,59, 224

V. Carpalla Clav Co., 42, 223

224. 225 ■

V. Cefu Cribbwr Brick Co

213

V. Metropolitan Rly., 548, 568

V. Oxford. Worcester, &c.,

Rly., 20, 21. 24, 479,

674

V. Rushout, .566, 676

V. Solihill, 554

— " m^*"*'

P. Talbot. 278

Green v. Cole, 52, 64, 65

V. Green, 109, 632

f. Hackney Corporation, 141

V. Howell, 526, 630

V. Pledger, 629

• i: Prior. 652

r. Pulsford, 679

■ 1: Rufhorford, 595

Groriihakli r. Briiidiry, iSS
— — f. Manchester aiid Birmine-
ham. Rly., 21, 27

Greenoujjh v. Gaskell. 604, 506
(ireenslade v. Dare, 598
Greenwell r. Low Beechbum Coal

Co., 222 .
Greenwich Board of Works v.

Maudsloy, 304
Greenwich Hospital Commissioners
t>. Blaokett. T6

e. Cheahin Lines Committee.

136

I'. Wadsworth, 636

V. Homsey. 46, 196, 672

Greer v. Bristol Tanning Co., 847,

Greville-Nugent i'. Mackenzie, 58
Grey v. Duke of Northumberland,
61

Greyvensteyn ». Hattingh. 107, 254,
256, 257

Grierson v. Cheshire Lines Commit-
tee, 122
V. Eyre. 94
Griffies v. Griffies, 95
Griffith V. Blake, 660, 674, 684

V. Richard Clav & Co., 184

— — ». Tower Publishing Co., 399
Gnfflths V. Benn, 512
Grimston p. Cunningham, 481
Grindley v. Booth, 201
Grose v. West, 303
Grove v. Search, 521, 522
Grosveuor v. Hampstead Junction

Rly., 127
Grosvenor Hotel v. Hamilton, 214
Grundy v. Briggs, 558
Guardian Fire aad Life Insurance
< o. t'. Guardian and General
Insurance Co., 368. 387
Guests' Estates Co. v. Milner's

.Safes C:o., 294
Guinness r. Fitzsimons, 108

f. rimer, 377

Gullick V. Tremlett, 200, 201, 206
Gnnter v. James, 161
Gumell I'. Gardner, 645
Gumey v. Behrends, 569

r. Longman, 302

(iutta Percha, &c.. Rubber Co., JB«,
363

Guyot I'. Thompson, 330
G Wynne v. Drysdaie. 341

Gyers, Be, 66

Hackett v. Jaiss, 671
Haddington Island Quarry i-. Huson

538, ,541
ii!«idon V. ilannerman. 425
UadMy V. London Bank of Scotland.

*■ 601

XUU OF CAMS.

ZXU

Hadwell v. Ri^ton. SM. 311
HMnie ». DoncMter R. D. C, 172
Haigh and L. & N. W. Rly., Re.
631.

Ilaitetonc, Be, 659, 660, 674, 683,
684

HaincM f. Taylor, 17, 18, 31, 157,
158

Haley t>. Hammersley, 68, 69
HaUord e. Hwdv, 686
Halifax «. ChamDen, 63
Halkctt V. Dudley (Earl), 540. 626
Hall, lie, 520, 674, 683

V. Barrows, 373, 380

r. Byron, 62

V. Corporation of Bootle, 298

V. Ewin, 492

V. Hall, 528, 537

V. Lichfield Brewery C!o., IM

V. Lund, 184, 268

V. Norfolk (Duke). 223

V. Swift, 245, 246

V. Trigg, 686, 689

Hallam t>. Vernon, 458
HaUiwell v. Phillips, 86, 87, 89
Halsey v. Brotherhood, 613
Hamilton v. Board, 652, 659

I'. Dunsford, 442, 479

V. Hector, 476, 633, 634, 635

Hamlyn v. Wood, 439
Hammersmith Rly. e. Brud, 161.
166

Hammond v. Brunker, 372

V. Maundrell, 622

Hamp V. Robinson, 645

Hampden v. Buckinghamshire

(Earl), 522, 546
Hampson v. Price's Patent Candle

Co., 576
Hampton «. Hodges, 77
Hanbury v. Cundy, 469, 470
V. Llanfrechna U. D. C, 33,

34, 194, 234, 236, 241, 246, 681
Hanbury's Settled Estates, Be, 74
Hanfstaegl v. Smith, 387
Hanmer v. Chance, 60
Hanna v. Pollock, 248
HanaoB v. Derby, 76
Harben v. Philipps, 558, 573, 676,

577

Harbidge v. Warwick, 189, 191, 192
Harcourt v. Ramsbottom, 540
Haidteg V. Metropolitan Railway
Co., 123

t'. Pingey, 684, 690

V. Wilson, 276

Hardman v. Holberton, 204
Hardy c. Martin, 466
Han «. LondoB and North W«t«gm
Btsr., M9, Ml, 571

Hargreaves v. Freeman, 363
Hargrove v. Congleton, 60
Hartogten v. BMidall, 600. 601, 604
Harland «. Binka, 524

Harman t'. Jones, 20
Harme v. Parsons, 464
Harmer v. Plane, 344
Harness' Trade Mark, Be, 871
Harper v. ApUn, 77, 643

V. Pearson, 369

V. Wright, 424

Harrington (Earl) v. Derby Corp.,

7, 34, 84, 170, 172, 240, 242, 244,

245, 261, 262, 263. 267
Harris t'. Beauchamp Bros., 4

V. Boots Cash Chemist Co.,

441, 494

V. De Pinna, 189, 193, 198

V. Ekins, 96

V. Flower, 280, 281, 283, 291

V. Jenkins, 293

V. Lewis, 660

V. PanoDs, 448

V. Ryding, 69

Harrison v. Anderston Foundry Co..
341

I'. Cockeroll, ,519, 649

I'. Gardner, 461, 532

V. Goode, 41, 155, 445

V. Guiney. 613, 616

V. Rutland (Duke), 295, 296,

297, 304, 306
V. Sonthwark, &c., Co., 136,

165, 161

V. Taylor, 38, 385

Harrison Patents Co. v. Nioholson.
340

Harrop v. Hirst, 238

V. Ossett (Mayor), 173, 202

Hart V. Colley, 360

V. Denliam, 627

V. Hart, 13

». Herwig, 626

Hartlepool Gas Co. v. West Hartle-
pool, &c., Rly., 646

Hart's Trade Mark, Re, 372

Hartz V. Schrader, 532

Harvey v. Ferguson, 97

V. Hall, 679

V. Truro B. C, 306, 308

V. Walters, 209, 246, 246

Haskell Golf Ball Co. c. Hatehmaon.
514

Hastings, Jix parte, 78

Ilat Manufacturers' Snwly Co. v.

Tomlin, 40 387
Hatterstey «. Lord Sfaelbume, 572.

673

HaufBtaeoi^ v. ami&, 414, 416, 418,
419

XXX

TABLK OF CASES.

H»v»ii* Cigar Co. r. Tillta, 377.

Havwi Gold Milling Co.. R*, 570
Hawea v. Bamford, 653

V. James, 623

Hawkins v. (Sardiner, 64d

1'. IlawkinB, 331

». Troup, 629

Hawley v. Steele, 206
Hawthomthwaite V. Kussell SlU
Hayles v. Peaae, 59
Hayman v. Govenion of RuBbv

School, 626, 626
Haynes v. Donan, 451, 456, i60

r. Ford, 3 J 5, 317. 318

V. Hayneg, 121, 123

Hayvard v. East London Water-
works Co., 264
V. Lely, 379

Hayward & Co. ». Haywaid it

.Sons, 512
Haywood v. Brunswiok Permaaent,
&c.. Society, 483. 492

V. Richards, 200

Ht'alcy (.. Corporation of Batky,

300, 301
Heap V. Hartley, 330
Heard v. Pickthome, 642

V. Stewart, 444

Heam v. Tennant, 686
Heath f. Brighton Corporation, 177,
204

c. Deane, 60

V. Maydew, 1 58

Hejjthcoto r. North .Staffordshire

Rly., 12, 471. 472
Heather r. Pardon, 207
Heather Bell. The, 643
Hccia Foundry v. Walker, 422, 426
Heddy v. Wheelhonae, 317
Hedges v. Metropolitan Rly., 122,

Hedley r. Bates, 610
Heine SoUy & Co. v. \orden, 343,
344

Helmore v. Smith, 641
Henderson «. Bank of Anatralaaia
870, 676

Hendriks v. Montague, 367, 368, 681
Hennessey v. Bohman, 671
Henning v. Burnett, 278, 281, 282,
283

Henry r. Great Northti u Rly., 565
Hepburn v. Lordan, 44. 206
Hepworth v. Pickles, 433
Heriot V. Nicholas, 480
Hermann Loog v. Bean, 42, 46, 509,
sn, 838

Heme Bay Steamboat Co. v. Hut-
ton, 480

Herriuff v. Dean and Chapter of .St.

Paura, 80. 82
Herron t>. Rathminee, 120, 132
Hersey v. Young, 644
Hertford, Sje parte, 622, 623
Hertz V. Union Bank of doo.

656, 637
Hervey v. Smith, 42, 46. 2(»5
Hewlett f. London C., 172
Hext V. GiU, 18, 59, 61, 213, 217,

646

Heydon's Case, 56

Heywood o. Wait, 686

Hickman v. Maisey, 105, 205, 296,

297, 306

r. Roberts, 632

Hicks V. Simmonds, 342
Hickson i-. Darlow. 339
Higginbotham v. Hawkins, 04, 96
Higgins and Hitchman, Hr. 5.)7
Higgins V. Betts, 43, 44, 177, 178,

179

V. Searle, 311

Higgs V. Goodwin, 336
Hisham «•. Rabett, 286
Hildesheimer v. Dann, 426
Hill V. Barry, 60

t'. Cock, 156, 246

V. Fearia, 373, 535

V. Hill, 463

V. Kirkwood, 539

V. Metropolitan Asyluiim Din-

triot, 202

V. Midland Rly., 122

V. South Staffordshire Rly., 22

f. Thompson, 343, 346

v. Wallasey L. B., 118

Hilliard v. Hanson, 628
Hilton V. Eckersley, 321, 325

V. Lord Granville, 2, 19, 27.

31, 60,218,221 • • •
Hinde v. Power, 658
Hindson v. Ashby, 269
Hipkins v. Plant, 387
Hipkiss V. Fellowee, 688
Hippesley r. Spencer, 77. 542
Hirsch v. .Tonas. 376
Hitchcock t>. Coker, 450, 452, 453

460
Hoare v.

206

Lewisham (Jorpor tion,

Hoare & Co. e. Mayor of Cnelten-
ham, 17

Hobart v. Southend Corporatiim.

255, 263.271
Hobbs V. Midland Rlv., 555
Hobhouse v. Hamilton, 507
Hobtioii ti. Gorringe, 70

V. Tulloch, 443

Hoby ». 6nMT«iorLibrar7, 366, Ml

TABU or oAsn.

Hodgkinson r. Ennor, SSS, MS
HodgRon t'. Deane. 8M. Ml

V. Dure, 103

f. Lord Powia, 683

IlodHon 17. Coppard, 444, 646
Hoffnuntf V. HsUubiuj, 518
Hogg t'. Kirby, 374

Scott, 37, 40«, 413

Holden v. Bolton Corpontion, 686,
593

V. Wee ken, 81

Holdsworth v. Macrae, 423, 426
Hole V. Bradbury, 398, 417, 418

V. Chard Union, 673

». Thotnafi, 89

Holford t). Acton Urban Council,

437, 430, 443
Holker v. Porritt, 232
Holland and Buxton School, Bt, 825
Holland v. Dickaon, 557

V. Hodggon, 70

f. Lazanis, 208

V. Worley, 672, 673

Holliiirake r. TruHwell, 392
Hollins 17. Verney, 207, 285
HoUoway v. Eghjua U. D. C, 208,
290

p. Hill, 484, 485

V. HoUoway, 365

Holme V. Guy, 527

HolniM V. Kasteni Countioa Kly.,
431, 442, 475, 479

17. Goring, 290

V. Millage, 5

ti. Upton, 108

Holophane e. Berend, 343, 346

Holroyd v. Marshall, 546

Holt & Co. t?. CoUyei-, 447

liolyoake v. Shrewsbury and Bir-
mingham Rly., 115, 133

Honywood v. Honywood, 52, 53

Hood r. Aston, 631, SU

ti. Easton, 76

e. Jones, 460

V. North Eastern Rly., 490

HotAliwn «. Pottage, 368, 373, 532

Hoole «. Great Wertem Kly., 558,
660

Hooley, Re, 692
Hooper v. Brodrick, 474

V. Bromet, 436, 486

17. Willis, 451. 454, 460

Hope V. Carnegie, 615, 687, 690, 692

17. Corporation of Gloucester,

43«

r. Hope, 10

17. Oshome., lO.';

Hope Bros. v. Cowan, 444, 642
Hopkins v, Greftt Northern Bly.,
3U '

Hepkinson r. Exetor (Marqoii),
(UH). 603

«7. Lord Burghley, 4<>9

f. St. James Co., 356

Horner r. Flintofl, 467

■ V. Graves, 430, 463

Horton t7. Colwyn Bay U. D. C.
161

Hotham, St, 523

Hotten V. Arthur. SOI. 405, 416

Ho Tung V, Man On Imnranee Co.,

561

Hough t>. Clark, 230
llouldsworth v. Evans, 661, 662
House Property, &e.. Co. Hone

Nail Co., 164
Howard v. tiunn, 400

17. Papera, 619

V. Press Printem, Co. 30, 650,

661

— V. Woodward, 453, 466
Howarth v. Armstrong, 214
Howitt t'. Hall, 399
Howley r. Jebb, 55, 60

Howley Park Coal Co. v. L. & N.

W. Rly. Co.. 209, 210. 217, 222,

223, 224. 225. 226, 227
Howton V. Frenwn, "88
Hubbard r. WoodfleU, 646
Hubbnck v. Wilkinson. 812
Hudson V. Ashby, 271

V. Bennett, 387

V. Maddison, 412

f7. Osborne, 372

t7. Osgerbv. 42

V. Tabor, 273

V. Walkn-. 680

Huggert V. Mien, 281
Hughes and Ashley, Re, 277
Hughes t. Percival. 216
Huguenin v. Basely, 1
Hulbert «>. Dale, 275, 284
Hulse. Be, 66. 67, 68, 60
HumphiejB v. Hanltoii, 64, 77, 78,

642

Hon^hriea «. Brocden, 209, 210,
212

V. Conaina, 208

Hnnt, Be, 523

— — V. Browne, 64
V. Chambers, 668

— V. Hunt, 448, 659. 660, 684

17. Peake, 209, 210, 217

Hunter v. Nickholds, 645
Hnnti^ V. Rnaaell, 61, 67, 81
Hnnt-Roope «. Ehrmann, 369
Hurdman v. North Eastern Bbr..

205 '
Hoasey «. Bailer. 204
HiiteliinMn *. Pittaln. Stt

xxxu

TABI.I or

HutrhUon & ("„. ,, St. Mungo Co..
422

liuitun I'. Hi-pworth, 650

». London and South Wcatern

Rly., 125. 167

r. Wanren, 62, 63

- — r. Weiit (^ork Rly., 57t», .->73
HlU!7.ry r. VwUl. 312
Hynian ,: U,.|„,. ig, eu, fig
r. K.w... 48, ao, 51, 64. M

Titi'. illL"'

IllLEE t'. Henshaw, 376
Ilford Park EsUtM Co. ». Jacobs,

Illinprorth V. Manchfwter aad Leeds
wly., 173

ImpeiiHl (Jiw Co. r. nroadb«nt. 26,

.•(•.•. ."),-). 14"). 1.56, 1.58. 166
InilxTial lly.ln.pathic Hotel Co. v.

IianipHoii. ,57;{, ',-<i
IncandcHceut (ia8 Light Co. v.
Brosden, 335, 339

V. Cantefo, 339

t: De Marc Incandeaeent Usbt

ic, .341

7 . Incandegcent Co.. 338

Inchhuld c. RobinMon. 110, 152 204
Incorporated Society of Law'Re-

portinjj r. (ireen, 392, 405
Ind Coope & Co. v. Hamilton, 443
lug* V. Birmingham. WolverluunD-

ton. Sec, Rly., 125
Ingram f. Edward*, 427

f. .stiff, 442

V. Tuck, 30

Inland Revenue Conimissionew v.
Joicey, 60, 61, 75

v. MuUer, & Co., .535

innocent v. North Midland i'lv

23 '
International Pulp, &c., Co., Jie, 620
International Tea Storm v. Hobba.

260. 276

Irish Provident Assurance Co.". Re.

."iH4 '
Irifili Society r. Harold, 272
Iron (»x Remedy Co. p. Leeds

InduHtrial Society, .■(84
Irrigation Co. of France. Re, 625
haaeson v. Thompson, 381
Isenberg v. East India House Estate
Co.. 43, 44, 45

Itwob *. Hwris, «4«. «ai
Irimej r. Stooker, 243, 24*

Isle of Wight Rly. r. Tahourdin, 575
Isiuigton Market Bill. He, 316
IsKngton Vestry v. Uomsey D. C ,

35. 47. 170, 171, 174, 244, 594.

669, 681 ' '

Ives e. Willans, 632

.1. — - V. S.-_. S28, S32
■lackson i'. Barry Rly., 631

v. Cassidy, 654

I'. Cator, 18

V. Munster Bank, 877

• r. Newcastle (Duke), 152, 183.

186, 176

- — ». Norraanby Brick Co., 42.

197. 496, 499
V. Peaked, 110

V. Stacey, 282

I'. Stanhope, 103

t'. VVinifrith, 436, 498

Jacoby v. Whit more, 465
Jacomb v. Knight, 44
James «. Coehnne. 489

I V. Downes. 687

V. Institute of Chartmd Ae-

countants. 602

r. J^vel, 116

f. Plant. 275. 292

t'. Stevensjj, 246, 291

James Westoll, The, 608
Jamieson v. Jamieson, 380, 358. 377
; — V. Teague, 449
Jan t>. Grossman. 367
Jandus Arc Lamp Co. e. Are Lamp

Co., 386
Jard t>. Ford, 318

J^roW HoBlstono, 406, 406, 418.

416

Jarvis v. Dean. 29i(, 302
— — - V. Islington Borough Council,

Jary v. Bamsley Corporation, 213.

■lay I'. Richardson. 465
Jeffries v. Jeffries. 689

tJ. Smith, 94

Jegon V. Vivian, 146
Jenkins v. Bushby^ 665, 666, 667

r. Hope. 40. 351, 354, 358, 664

V. Jaekson, 41, 154, 204'

«. Jones, 538. 541

Jeonings ». Brighton, Ste., Smrer
Board, 678

r. Jennings, 372, 533

Jersey (Earl) v. Neath Union. 89
Jervis i'. White, 531
.lesus College * . Bloom. 94, 95
Job V. Potton, 72, 95
Johns r. James, 523, 524
Johnson, Be, 519
V. Edge, 814. 515, 516

*■ ^3^***"'* AgMicy Co., 888

— - — ShrawsbuT and fiiimins-
ham BJy., 19, m, 477

UMLM or OAin.

uxiii

JohiiKoii I. Wyull. 24, 30, 173
.lohnaoii H 'l"r»«le Mark. S», MO
JolUUtnn r. ( oiirtM of Jtutiee Chain-
b«TM. 4H

• r. O'Neill, 22«. 271

— — - ». Orr Kwing, 376, 384
Jobiuitone v. Crompton. 59

V. HkU, 153. 433 444. 403, 404

V. Symonii, 63

JoUy V. Kiiir. Se, Kine f. .loUy,
— Hi ■'' p'l' '"'''•''*'"» Dorking
Joiiiw, iiV. tilt)

JoDM ». Cliai.iM-ll, 48, ai, 64, 153

*. UiHldeii, 816

■ ». Gibbona, 438

OrMt Cratral Bly.. ms. 506

V. Gnat We«tem Rly.. 29

V. Grewi. 406

f. Heavens, 463, 465

r. Lalimer, 65A

V. f ee, 311

■ V. "K, 4")8

v.: '.uirwHt r. t'., 25, 36 4<(

110. 152, 153, 156, 'l7tt,'
178. 178, 229—231, 230,
240. 242. 26 .. 260—263.
271. 203, 673

North Vancouver Land Co.,

558

V. Paeayt. Rubber Co., 2. 16

26, 3t). 5,58, 661

». Powell. 21)1

V. Pritohard. 186; 213. 214

216. 242, 244, 258, 28l!

288

I'. Staiistead Kly., Sec., 161

V. Tankerville (Earl), 20, 34,

44, 428,429,431,600,602,

672

I'. 'I'lionie, 446

V. WiUiaiiig, 220

JopMu V. James, 612. 613
Jordeson v. .Sutton, 10, 20, 32 44

163. 166. 168, 211. 252. 55<(
.liiHeph I). Land Integrity Co., 540
.loMelsohu 0. Wailer. 296
Judea Umkal Oompotiition. Be, 398

Kane and Pattison r. Boyle, 351

Kamo V. Pathe Freren. 391

Kaufman e. Uerson, 10

Kavanagh v. Coal Mining Co., 276

Kay V. Oxley. 276. 276

Kayo V. Chabb, 366

— — i;. Croydon Tramwaya, 677,

Keates v. Lyon, 487, 488
V. Woodward, 14, 15

Keitli V. Burrows, 543.

r. Twentieth Century Chb,

Keith Pr<.wiw r. National T<>Iephone,
432

Kekewich v. Marker, 83, 90, 642
Kelk^f. Pearson, 44, i76, I7», 188.

Kelly f. Hylcs, 374

V. ll()0|>er. 414, 417

r. Morris. 8M, Me, 413
Kel»ey t: Dodd, 24, 433. 600
Kenihle r. I'arreii, 466, 467

V. Keen. 432

Kemp r. Hird, 438. 430

i: London, Brighton, 4ee.,

Rly.. 113, 120, 135

V. Sober, 434. 444

r South Kantern Rly.. 117

120

t'. Weet End, &c., Rly., 120,

131

Kennedy v. De Trafford. 538. 641

— r. Kennedy, 436, 448, 633
Kenriek and Jeffnmn'a Patents.

ite, 332

Kensit v. Great Eaatera Rly., 233,
241

j5cnt Coalfields Syndicate, Be, 667
Kent t». .Taoksor., 560

Kcnworthy r. Accitnor, 652

Kerfoot i'. CooiK>r, 384

Kerford v. Scaeomhe Hoylake Rlv.

Co., 127 '
Kernaghan r. WillianiK, 664
Kerr i: .Mayor. of Preston, 8
Kershaw r. Kalow, 530
Key V. Neath, 268. 260
Kcynsham Co., Be. 619
Kidgill r. Moor, 1 10, 29.1
Kilb«iy r. Haviland. 496
Kilgour i\ liiKldes, 28.5, 286
KilMiorey (Lor.l) v. Thaekeray. 497
KinilH T 1: AdaiiiH, 443
Kinipton r. Kve, 57. 63. 64, 78. »1H3
Knie c. .loUy, 34. 35, 43. 44, 45, 148.

e?": 67!'

Kmg V. Brown, Durant & Co., 104,

105

1: (JillHrd, 30 41, 388

1: Maloott, 520

V. Smith, 77, 543

— - r. AVycombe Bly„ 122. 126,

King & Co., Re, ."-.SO

Trade Mark, Be, 654

Kingham v. Lee, 72
Kingsbury Collieries Co., Be, 548,
669,684 ' . .

Killfrnlfill Miller \ To. I-. T. Kiug-
Hlon A r.,,, ,|H4. :itlT, aSl, 5U

Kimiuiiil c. I'iclil. tWOI. (IH7
r. 'rriilliipi', .">;is

Kiiiiicll V. Itullaiitiii)-, :iHtt

Kino r. Rudkiii. H74

KJTby p. .narrowKutc, 123, 145, 166,
402

c. I'iii({iil<iii I'. I). ('., 2«H. 21M»
Kirrliiirr i: ( Inilmii. 4.ii», 477, 4m2
.".".'t. tl.ll

Kiikliriiioii l.ocal Uiiiird r. Aiiilcy,

-•«.->, 2(1(1
Kitcttt I-. Shar|M'. tt4(»
KitU V. Moore. 4, 6, 7, MS, 631
Knapp V. London, Chatham, and

Dover Rly.. 126
Knight r. ("rinp, 377

V. I'ii|>lchhin, .'i4

■ — I. (iiinlncr. im

r lull' of W'inlit Klcrliic Lifjlit

( (1., 2(14

1: Mowlt-v, 80. 81, 82, ur.

P. Pnrwlf. 41

— — r. Ximmoiw, 24, 433, 435. 446,
49.'-.

- - r. \V<M)rt', 28B

KiiowlcH 1: Lmicawliiic uikI Vork-

»hirp HIv. Co., 221
Kodak Co. r. (frenville, 377
V. London •StereoMopic Co.,

362

Krebl r. Biirrt-U, 44. in, 072
Kiirt« I'. Spence, 614. &15
Kyiiork & Co. v. Rowlands, 107,
Id!)

Kyslii- r. AltiiruN CoKl Co., 558

L.VBdi ) iiKRK. r. Ih'NH. 4(l!(

r. J.oiil WliaiiKlitTf, (idl. (id.'J

La CuinpaKiite Ue .Vlayville r. U'hil-

le.y. S79
Lacon's t^ttlement, lie, 66
Lade v. Sheplierd. 306
L£.i1yinan v. Grave, 193, 194
hiU'K V. Whalev. 258
Laird r. Birkenhead Kly., 22

V. BriggH, 274

Lake v. Smith 27

V. Kotax .Hotor Co., 34d

Lamb r. Beaumont, 67d

V. Evans, 389, 391. 410, 504

I'. Xortb London Rly. Co.,, 113

r. .Sambaa Rubber Co., 30,

5.58, 661
Lambert r. Adtluiou. 6(l2, G0.3

1: Lowestoft Corporatioii, 158

Lutnhtuu r. Mclliab, 154, !&;>, 2u4.

295

Lampon t>. Corke. 437

ur CAHBH.

LuMim n t'neiunatif Tube i'o. r.

I'l.illipH. 452. 457
LuncHMhire ;in<l Yurl.ithire Kly. r.

l>iiv<'(i|Mirt. 55.">
LaneaMhire KxploHiviH Co. r. Ko-

bnrite Co.. .151. 35.'.
Lanciwter (Att.-tien. of Duchy) ».

L. ti \. W. Rly.. 609
Lancaster and CarUile Rly. r. North
WeHtern Rly., 471, 471
i Land .S4><Miriti*-H Co. «, CMBmoeial
Co., 270
l.and. kcr r. \V(»lff. 411
LaiM) v. Barton, 648

I-. Capw^v. 294

f. Newdigate. 42, 46, 406, 663

r. NomMn, AS6

V. 8teme, 683

Lanjf r. Pnnrea, M6
LaiiKham v. Grtat Mortbwn Rly..
649

LaUKley. hj- }Mirle. 663, 667, 693

f. IlitniiiioiKf, 276

r. Hawk. 5r»
Lan>i<iown« t'. Laniidowne, 04
Lapointe v. L' Association de Bien-

laisanoe. Montreal, 600
Larkin r. Relfa«t Harbour Coints..

:)2I, .{24

I.alinicr c. Ayli nbury, ti»., Rly., 138
liiuKider. He. .'153. 686, 686, 687
Law r. (Urrett. 031

c. Ki'(ldit( h Local Board, 468
Law (iuarantt'e .Society <. R:issian

Bank fi4d, o44
Litwes t>. Pimer, 345
lAwranee v. Noneys, 409
.Lawrence v. (ireat Northera Rly.,
257

c. Ilitcli, 3i;

- — r. llorto;!, 4.i, 500

V. .Smith. 413

Lawton v. Lawton, 67

Laiaraa v. Cairn Steamaliip Co.,
439 474

r. Charles, 423

Lea. Re, 362

•. \Vbit :aker, 466

Leader '-. Moody, 493, 500

Leahy v. (ilover. 332, 349. 354
; lA-ake V. Beckett. 77. 645

Leamy v. Waterford and liimerick
Rly., 313

Leaa Hotei Ci., He, 542
; Leather Clotb Co. «. American Ck>th
I Co., 367, 360, 377, 378.

I 379 380. 388

V. Lursont, 450, 508

Leatheriee Co. v. Lycett Saddle Co.,

n-OM or CUM.

IIXV

, 23

U Ulaiwli r.

l^^'WP^Wi Wuarrivft { r. Bui-

B««rd. 18. 301, MA

Loe V. AUtiiii, .•(.•(, 5fl

r. Anihiirxt. IH, 27

r. A.vl.Hl)iirv 1'. f., MS. §03

p. Httl. v. :i«H. 3«7, 877, 378.

:m. .•»H4

— r. Milii,.,-, I 1.-), 134

v. Kudnii, 67

•>. Mtevenaon, 258

^((h""**"'"*'^ Board i: Button,

•-♦•••••h V. S« liwpdrr, 183, IBS

L«M'<I.H (I)iiki' of) r. AmherKt (Lord).
21. ;tH. !t4. <(«, 1)7, |7;(

UetU Vtnitf t o. v. Uei^hton Kluo
< <>.. :\4H.

U'Mh Navigation r. Horafall, 103

l»eaukm V. J«kiMt«B-W]itt«, Mu.
451, 48S

r. Ktttik, 512

LcKtfott I'. Barrett, 437

L< >,'li c. Ilculd. .14

Kt'hmann c. Mararthiir

LeiceHtPr. A> /wjrfr, 054
Leigh V. 1 1. -Witt. 63

f. Hind, 457

p. Jack, 304

r. Leigh, til

V. Taylor, B7, M, 69

I^eighton r. Walee, 456

I.«ith Council r. Leith Harbuitr. fce..

173. .'■.fi7. :.!M). 301
JA'Uiaitrc i: Davin, 214
Lcnianu r. llerjter, 531
Le May r. Wolch, 422
Lenuiion v. Webb, 148
Lenipriert' v. Lange, 626
Loiiey f. I allinghMn and TbompMn.

2, 16, 26, 542, 670
Lcnjj V. Andrewen, 450, 451, 452
4,-)6, 460

Leonard and Ellin' Tra<le Murk, iff.
3fltt

Leonhardt r. Kall^^, 333, 346. 347.
349

LeischallaH r. Woolf, 68
Leslie v. Bimie, S24
v. Shiel, 626

r. Young, 392

Lett c. U-Xt. till. 613
Lrvcr r. ( iiiodwiti. 38,'>
Lever Bros, i: Manbro"
I'ioneers .'Society, 40,

:«-_•!.-■!, ■!77. :)s2 387
Levy r. Walker, 373
Lewi* Bowles' Oaae, 5^ 73, 83
Le»k V. Baker, 30

Kquitable
332, 339,

i.i4 wii« r. t 'hapiuiui. 413

I'. Durnford, 4,54

I'. FullirfoM. 301, 413. 415

V. Meredith, 105, 247. 248, 280,

276

r. Smith 303, 506

r. WpHton • super - Mare Local

Board, 115. 116. 117

lA'Viin and Allenhy r. I'egg,-, 440
lifwix and .<<alonie r. Charing Crons

and KuMlon Illy. Co.. 133, 134,

• I H. 217
Ixiyman v. lleK«|,. p. I). C., 206
Libraeo r. Shaw Walker, 3!Mi, 392
Licensed Victualler*" tiazette v,

HinghMn, 374
LifTord's rase. 288
Lingkt^ r. ChriMt<>huNh Corporation.

295, 2!I0

Lingwood r. Stowniarket Co., S39
Linoleum .ManufatturlM Co. v.

Nairn. 358. 360
Lin(.tyi.e Comptuy Trade Mark.

A'l 362

Linotype Co. «. BrHidi EmpinType-

setting Co., 612
Lipman v. Pulnian, 39, 204
Liquid Veneer Co. r. .Scott. 003, C07
liister V. Ka«twood, 344

p. JiPather. 655

— ; — r. Lobley, 125

Litholite Co.' c. Tr.ivi« hmiilatois

C«., 389. 391, 410, 411, 503. 304,

807

Liltte p. Kingswood Collieries Co.,
807

I'. Newport and Hereford Bly..

132 ' '

Littler c. Thonip..*on, .-.6. 603
Littlewood r. Caldwell, 536
Liverpool (Mayor. Jte., of) r. Chor-

ley Waterworks Co., 112, 550

551. 679

Liverjwol and N. Wales Steamship
( o. r. Mersey Trading Co., MS.
269, 271 B • «wt

Liverpool, Su., Stores Association

V. Smith. «. 510, 511
Livingstone c. Rawyard Coal Co., 146
Llandudno r. c. ,.. Woods, 7, 38.

34, 1(H. 135, 273, 274. 681
LlMelly Rly. V. London and North

Western Rly.. 136
Lloytl r. I,ondon. Chatham, and

Dover Rly., 43.5, 442. 496
Lktydrt i: Lloyds Inventment Co.,
•■J67. i>»i

i: Lloyds, Southampton, 384

Lloyds Bank ». Medway Navim-

tiou, 630

e 2

XXXVl

TABLE OF CASES.

6. rm>. 510

JJo.vds jiiiil Dawson r. JJoyds,

•"^t'utlianiiitim, 3«7
LlynviCo. ,•. Hiof;deii, 146
J-ocktr J.ariiiiNDii ,-. Stanley, 220
J^ockliart i: lluiily, 538
J^odtT f. Aiiiiild. tl!)0
Logaii r. Maiik "f Scotland, 12, 600,
<>lii. ()I2
'■. l>a\ is. 577
J^oiiiax I-. Stott, 254
London Ash. of .shipowners r. hoii-

dou and Tilbury Docks, 111, 112,

London (Hjsliop of) f. Webb, 8»
London (City ol) c. (iraeme, 64
Loiidnii (Ciy of) Hrcwery Co. r.

Jt'iiiiaiit, 1 7(i. l!»7
London Comity Comiril i\ Atl.-

Ccn.,'548, 54!1, 5.")0, 587,

588

C. K. Rh ., 7. 161

• '■. Hancock, 143

• '•. Iliifrlics, 296

• ' . Illuniiiiatcd Advert. Co., 143

' Metropolitan Rlv.. 143

i: I'lyor, 143

'•. Si iiewzik. 14;!
London (Mayor. \c., of) v. Hedger,
().")

V. RijfgK, 280

London and Birmingham Rly. i.

(irand Junction Canal Co., 263,

685

London and Blackwall Rly. t'. Cross.

6. 7, 1()7

London aM<l liri;;liton, &c., Rly. v.

'rriinian. Itil. 2oti
London and County lianking Co.

r. Ijcwis, 545, (i26
London (ieneral Omnibus Co. r.

Lavell. 670
London (iloiKCKtcrshirc Pairv v

Morl. y. 21ti ■
I-oiidon and Norllicni Bank i:

Ni wrn s. .")I2
London and Ndilli \\'c.>tcni l!lv. r.

Ackroyd, 222. 227
■ — — i: Conuw. .St'wcrK for Fobbing
Levek, 273

f. Evans, 213

V. Camett, 447

V. Howley Park Coal Co., 209.

210, 217, 222—227

r. LancaKhirf and Yorkshire

lily.. 107
■ — — i: I'liif, ."its. 5ti;i
>■■ Wcstmmstpr <'on>iiration

105. 107, 113, lie, 30S

London and Provincial Law Co. v.

London and Provincial Joint

Stock Co.. 582
London and South Western Rly. v.
Coward, 167

t'. Gomm, 483. 484, 4!»2

London and Suburban Land, \c

Co., V. Field, 447
London and Yorkshire Bankinc ( o

»•• Pritt. 465
London, Chatham, and Dover Kly.

Arrangement Act. /I'c. 472, 473
London. Chatham, and Dover Rly

V. Bull, 25, 37. 4!)!t
Londonderry v. Kussel, 382
London Pressed Ihnge Co., He, 544,

545 '

London Steam Dyeing Co. r. Digby,
41

Long Dau.n Recreation Ground t?.

Midland Rly. Co., 123, 166, 492
Longman r. W inchester, 391
Iioog i: Bean, 6

Loosemore v, Tiverton, &ic., Itlv
124, 126

Lord 1'. Copper Mining Co., 57.i

Commissionens of Sidney

230, 232

i: (ireat Eastern Rly. Co., 154

Losh c. Hague, 329, 347
Louis !•. SmcUie, 38i», 504
Lovatt (Lord) c. Duchess of Leeds,
53

Love r. Bell, 212, 214, 219

Lovell and Chriatmas c. Wall. 447
451, 464 '

Lovell V. Smith, 292

Lovett, Re, 520

Low f. Iniies. 28, 432, 663

■ I'. Staines Reservoir, 127

r. Ward, 414

Lowndes v. Bcttle, ,13, 101, 102, 104

r. Norton. 53

Lowthcr r. Carlton. 48ti

Luby II. Lancashire and Cheshire
Miners, 602, 606

Lucas Moncrieff, 398, 399

Ludlow, f,V piirte, 56

Liiker r. Iiennis, 459
Luniley r. (iye, 325

t'. .Metropolitan lily.. 447

r. Ravenscroft, 28, 431

— — t-. Wagiier, 19, 20, 429. 440.

473, 470, 482
Lurting v. Conn, 57
Lnscombe r. G. W. Rly., 297
Lushmgton r. Boldero, 87, 92
Lnttreil's case, 236, 245
Luzmore, lie, 688
Lyoett Saddle Co, v. Brooks. 513

XABtB

Lyddall v. Claveiing, 73
Lyddon v. ThomM, 454
Lyde V. Eastern Bengal Rly., 548

r. Kutwvll, 68

Lynch V. ('omi-r' ,.s. ,r',i-.r« r>» Sewers,

122, 140
Lyndon, He, tit
Lyne, v. \icl < P<. ."i
Lyon f. Fisb ci . m' < o., 1;31 232,

239, 269. 2"4

V. Godduiti, oo'fi,

r. Newcastle {'ornoration, 350,

355

Lyonn & (■<». r. (iullivev and Capital

Syndicate. 2()(i. .'!0!)
I'. Lon<l()n, City and Midland

Hank, 53
Lyons Sc. Sons v. Wilkins, 321
Lyttletou Times Co. v. Warner &

Co.. 185, 440
Lyttleton v. Blackburne, 600, 603
Lytton r. Devey, 408, 409

M Andhkw i: Ilassett. 40. 3.">7. 30n,

38(i, :m

M Beatli c. Kavenscroft, 646
Macbride v. Lindsay 560
M'Cabe v. Bank of Ireland 680
McCartney v. Londonderry Rly. Co.,
232, 233, 234, 235. 236. 237, 238,
240. 2.58. 5.54
-McClelland i: Manclie«ter Corpora-
lion, 159. 161, 162, 163, 262. 304
Maccksfleld (Uayor of) v. Chapman,
317

M'Curdy, v. Noak, 656
M'Dougall tj. Gardiner, 573, 578,
579

V. Jersey Imperial Hotel Co.,

563

McDowell i: Craiid Canal Co.. 55!)
McKacharn r. Coltoii. M». 33. 35 44

7S. 441. 44!). 4!)3. 672
McKvoy r. ii. X. Kly., 248
McEwen v. Steedman. 203. 2.-4
Macey v. Metropolitan Board of

Works, 126, 144. 167
Maefadden v. .Tenkyna, 521
.Me(;iiMle V. Royal London InsarsDce

Co., .-,.-)(». .586
Mclilc'iirion. lie. 303
McUratli. AV, 635 . 636
Maegregor i: .Metropolitan Kly.,

126

M'Gruther v. Pitelier. 483
McHenry v. Lewi«. 611. 612. 615
Melntodb and Pontypridd Co.. Re,
Si

Madntyie r. Bclelier, 430, 439

or CASKS. xxxvii

Mclntyre Brothen ». McGavin.

240, 244
Mackenzie r. Childers, 487, 488
M Kenzie r. M'Kenzie, 623
I McKeown r. .loiiit Stock Institute.
693

Mackett i: Heme Bay Commia-
! sionem, 29!), 639
Mackie r. Solio Co., 517
M'Kiunon v. Stewart, 523
Maclaren v. Staiuton, 613, 018, 677
Maclean v. Mackay, 486
: Maeleod v. Jones. 30, 539, 540, 661
McMahon v. North Kent Iron-
works Co., 545
.M.-Manus i: Cooke, 44, 173, 193,
499

Maemillan r. Dent. 395, 408
McMurray r. Cadwcll, 205
McNab V. Bobertsou, 238. 251
McNeill V. Garratt. 663, 686
— — I'. Williams, 29
Maci)heinoii r. Scottish Wav, &c..
302

MCrae v. Houldsworth, 427
.Maxee r, Lovell. 46(i
Magnolia Co. i: .\tlas Co.. 376. 386
Magor V. Chadwick. 248. 2.50
Mahon (Lord) v. Stanhope, 89
Maidstone Palace of Varieties, Re,
13. 607, 641
' Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co., 478
i .Major Bros. v. Franklin, 359
Maleverer v. Spinke 62
MaUan v. May, 437, 460, 462, 463,
! 460

! Malmsbnry Kly. v. Hudd, 631
Malone v. Laskey, 153
Mancheoter Banking Co. v. Parkin-
son, 6G0

Manchester Brewery v. Coombs,
44.5, 459

r. \orth Che-hire, &e., 367,

581

: ManchcKlcr Corporation t'. Lyons.
31.5. 318

■ V. New Moss Colliery, 217

». Peverley, 315

Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln-
■hire Rly. v. Anderaon,
IM

1'. Worksop. 263

I Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Man-

ehcKter Kaeecourse Co.

439, 474, 626
— — I'. Rochdale Canal ( 'o.. 250, 556
Mander c. Falcke. iSi, 686
Mangan v. Met. Kleotric Supply Co.,
668 KK. .

I Mann v. Brodie, S9S

txxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

and Navy

Mann f. SU plicnH. 432, 489
MiiiiiierK (Lord) v. Johnson, 23, 48;-,

4!t4, 400, 4flO
Miiiii..', Tlif. r,43

Miiiisell r. British Liiioii Co., 084
'• ^'iillcy PrintiiiL' Co., 231

2n!», -'.-.l.2r,2, 418 •
MUI18.T c. Xoitliorii and EiiRfpm

< uunties RIy., 16«
Man»fipld r. <"rawford, .K)
— V. Shaw, .519
.Maiiwood's cano. 54. Ti.l
Miiplc r. .Tiiiiior Arinv

Stores. 31»1
Mai(j) r.lcock. f,78
Mii|(|)iii V. I.ihcrl V. •Mtr,
Alan oni c. Jiritisli i;a,lio Trloeriiph

Co., 34<^ 342 '
Marker v. Marki r. 21, 83, 8.-., 86. 88
MarlborouKh (Duke of) v. 8t. John,

oO, 81

Marnior r. Alcxuiider, 564
Marriott v. Kum (irinstead fily.. 33
34, 105.107,111.112,114,'
161. 306, 547. 549—551,

.580

.-. Tiirplcv. 82

Marsh, Ke, «35
Marshall f. Bull, 391

1'. Colman, 535

'■. Marsliall, 448, 633

r. Kdss, 378

• 1: Sladdeii, 521. 625

' ■ WiilKoii. 531, 534

Marshall K Valve (;oar Co. v. Man-

imig & Co., .-.77- 57!»
Martin i: IJaiiiiistpr, 14

V. Beauchamp, 680

f. Great EaHtern Uly. Co

162

r. Kin)wly8, 95

I'. I<oii(loii. Chatham, and

Dovt r Hly., 119, 125

r. L. C. C. 150

■ '•■ Niitkiii, 442

V. I'orter. 146

V. Price, 20, 183. 672. 673

f. Roe, 60

Marliiiiiali', AV, 640
.Marty I r. I,awrenre, 107. 108
Mason 1. I'ulhani Corporation, 216
Mawn (. Hill. 231. 233, 240

V. Mason. 7!t

r. Provident ( lothinjj c,,., 450.

451. 4.12. 457. 458. 462!

405

f. !<hrew8l)ury RIy. Co.. 242.

244

— — V. SlokM Bay Pier and Rlv.,
123

Mason r. Wcstoby. 544
Mason s-()i phani.'>ti', AV. ,■.42
•MaKsani r. Thorley H Cattle Food

I «., 365, 369, 508
Massey v. (Joyder, 215
Master r. Hansard, 487, 488
aiatthews V. Great Northern RIy.,

565

— — r. Sheffield (Mayor), 202
Matlhewnon r. Stoekdale. 405, 411
Matthie 1: Kdwards. 139
Matts c. llawkiii,', ,;15
Maudslev, Sons a >. Field, Be, 617
Maunsell v. Hort, 64, 65

7,"- Midland Great Western lUv.

of Ireland, 168, 473. 561, 566, 572

iT.',"'*.".,'- ''''''^f' 391. 404, 405.
41.3, 414, 41.5, 416

Maxey Drainage Board r. C, X
lily.. 2.5(i. 257. 272 ' "

Maxim Xordenfelt r. Xordenfelt,
458

Maxwell r. Ho^g, 374, 375, 377

V. 8omerton, 404

May V. Bellerille, 276, 276. 284

■ 1'. O Xeill. 433

Mayer v. .Spence. 346. 656
Sla.vlair Property Co. v. Johnston,

1 1*', 153. 293
Mayuard t'. Gibson. 57
Ma.,Tiard's Settled Estates. Jfo, 67,

I Oo

I Mayo V. Seaton, U. D. ( .. 206
Maythome v. Palmer. 433, 436
Mears v. Callender, 67
Mea«un'8 Bros. e. Measures. 389

428. 433, 441. 462. 481. 60S. 604 '
Medway XaviKation Co, v. Romnev

(Larl). 237
Melachrino v. Melaehrino, 368. 368.

369

Mellor V. Thompson. ,508. 640
V. Walmsley, 230 267 ''71

Menier r. Hooper s Teleifraph Co

.575. 576. 580
Menzies r. Lord Rreivdalbane, 257
Mereer 1: .Vuctloii .Mart Co.. 178

r. Irvinjt, 466

r. Liverpool RIy. Co.. 121

— — V. VVoodgate, 303

Merchant Banking Co. r. .Mereliants'

.louit Stock Bank, 581
Merchants' Trading Co. t'. Bajiner

428, 476 mii.er,

M. redith r. Wilson, 435
Merri. ;k e. Liveriiool Corp., 9, «10
Merrideld v. Liveipool C»tt<m As-
sociation, 576
Merryweatlier r. Moon, 389. S0S,S04

tABtB or CABE8.

xxdx

M '*8agerie« Inip^riales v. Baines,
48(»,

Meters ('<i. r. Metropolitan (ias

Meters Co.. 35:{. 692
Metropolitan Anialganiateil Kxtatex

Co., Re, i>i4
Metropolitan '^wk v. Pooley, But)
Metropolitan ^.oard of Works v.

London and North Western Rly.,

244

Metropolitan Distriet Asvlum c.

Hill, 16:i. 104, 165. 202
Mt'tropolitan District Rly. r. EarlV

Court Co.. 646
Metropolitan Electric Supply Co. t'.

(Under, 439, 474, 478. 482
Metropolitan tias Meters Co. i'.

British, Foreign Supply Co., 515

—518

MetropoUtan Muaio Hall Co. v.

Lake, 693
Metropolitan Rly. v. Wodehouse.

121

Metropolitan Water Board r. Solo-
mon, 163, 164
Meux V. Bell, 545
ti. Cobtey, 48. 50, 51, 62, 65,

V. Jaooba, 70

Mexborough (Lord) v. Bower, 499
Mexican Co. v. Maldonardo, 6fiO
Meyen v. Heunell. 526
MieUethwaite v. Newlay Bridge Co.,

230, 305

v. Micklethwaite. 83, 8S, 87

f. Vincent. 271

Middleton v. Browne. 4M, 461

V. Magnay, 54S

Midland Rly. 'r. Ambergate. &p.,

Rly., 137

f. (ire.Vt Wentem Rly., 129,

I ;!«, .'57 1

r. (iribble. 1U4. 292

■ r. Haunchwood. &c.. Co., 224

I'. I^ndon and North VVestern

Rly., 439, 571

V. Mile*. 2*0

V. Robinson, 224. 225

MidwMMi V. Manchester Corpora-
tion. ITtS. 16:i. I OH. 169. 2,'iS

MiffheU «r. .lohore, 630

Milbiim r. Newton. 685. Wt

MiWr«'d i: Weaver, .100

Milex t'. Tlionias, HSl

V. Tobin, 22

Millar v. Lang and Polak. 390

Millw «. Haneoek. 27S, 877. 381,
tM

HiQelt «. DavMT. 75, 7«. 643
MilUcan v. SnlUvaa, 477, WO

Milligan v. Mitchell, 524
Millington v. Fox, 30. 41. 357. 382,

386, 387
Mills t'. Dunliani, 461
r. Northern Kly. of Buenos

AyrcK, 553. 629
.Mihier's .Safe l,'o. v. (ireat Northern

and City Rly. Co., 186, 208, 243,

275, 277—279. 282, 283. 280, 290

—292
.Miner r. (lilmour, 236
.\Iinet I'. Morgan, 505
Mireaha Taniaki i-. Baker, 85
Mitchell V. CantriU. 193

V. Darlev Main Colliery Co.,

670

V. Henry, 27. 28. 29. 426

— — ■ I'. Reynolds. 449

Moet r. Couston, 4U, 41. 385, 387

V. Pickering, 377, 388

Motfatt (;ill. 403

Mogul Steam ."^liip Co. v. Macgr^tor,

2, H, 320, 324, 4.-)8
MoUett r. Knequist. 6.52
Molliueux t'. Powell. 71
Molyneux r. Richards, 432
Mouckton V. tiraiuaphone Co., 391
Monson «. Tussaud, 6, 5U9, 510
Montain v. Parker. 617
Monteflore v. Browne, 524
Montgomerie i'. Youtii.'<, 377
Montgomery v. Thoni|.-ion, 383. 384
Monti c. liarnes, 68. 70
Moody r. Hebberd, *-'59

r. .Steggles. 641

Moor I'. Anglo- Italian Bank, 615,

620

Moore, Re, 520

I'. Bennett, 41

r. Rawnon. 194. 292

r. rilcoatK Mining Co., 429

478

r. Webb, 242, 244

.Moosbriigger r. .Moosbrugger, 640
Morant k. Chamberlin. 302
Mordue r. Deaa of DsAam. 5.1
Moreland v. Riehardaon. 105, 107
Morgan v. Fear, 190. 1^ 286

r. (ireat Kastem Rly., 41

r. M Adani. 378
Morison r. .Moat, .'>03, .5(»7, 508
.Morley i>. Pragnall, 201
Moro<-c« Boand Sjradieate «. Hania,
421

Morrell r. Pearson. 37, 681
Morris v. Aahbce, 40S. 406, 415

V. Coiauw, 4ti

V. Ed^iftMi, n». 2»l

v. (irraat, 45

V. MorriM, 94t 96^ 96

xi

TABLE OF 0A8B8.

2.(7. 2:t8

< 'jr-

Morris r. V.ylo. 4.">0, 4.->l. 4-,2

— — «•. TottcnliaiM. \c,," Rly.^ 134^

t: Wrijjlil. 4()(i

MoiTuon, Jie, 70

Mortimer r. AVibon, 604

Morton 'h Design, Be, 422

Moscli V r. rhadwiok. 318

'^T.-jy.':: Kott.vl<.nf,.i„ Mineg Co.,
i).>!l. MW. .->«!, om, ->76

1: Wiilker, .•il7

Moscr r. Scwfll. 344

MoNCN c. 'laylor, 444, 44((

Moms r. Brail burn,

Mo«tjn J'. Athcrtou, 2.t«
239. 249

■ — ■ — f- Lanoaster. 210

M"(ioii 1: .Mills. 2114

Motley r. I )()wiliiiaii. l>(i

•Moll I-. • Imiillired. 1 "(.•(. Ijjj gji
.Mi.lieliel r. Ciibiti. 4ri>i
.Moullel ( ol^.. 4 -,7
■Muiilis r. Owen. lo
Moiisuii r. Hoelini. .t:.",
Mowart r. Hudson. «7
.Moxhum V. (Jrant.
Moy r. St,m]t. I'm!
M../lev r. Alston, .-..-.it. 57;). .574
■Miuhl r. Ceneial rtiiini S,r,

I"- I lets. ,!24
Muudoek 1: Blaekwood. 3«, 416 417

Miillins c. Howell. 683
-Miilli, r. Hubbard. 144
MiiiMlonl 1: (;etliin}r. 4.->(»
Mnnns Isle „| \\,^r],i l-Jy., Jgg
-Mnnro r. Hunter. .•!77

— '•. U iv«'nlioe. &c., Rlv 07

431. 654, 6,-,-,, (i.-,7
Munsterr. Canimell <'i... -,.-,7 r,-g

iriy..'>,<io'"^'^'''""''''' "'"^
Muntz r. J-'oster. 336
Muraio i-. Taylor, 384
M«Wtroyd ». Robinson, 240. 242,

Murphy ,•. \\ illeockll. 689
Murray r. Dunn. 432
— — V. Epsom K. M., ,i(i,s ;({)<)
Mnsjrpave «•. Horner, 6,'J 47s '
MiisMlburKh Real Estate Co i
.Muss,.lbur(rh ( Corporation. 275 " '
Mussel white v. .Spieer. 435
Muslims Hey r. (iadban. 8

-Myers c. l aKerson, ls5

Myers' Patent, He. 644

N'adix. A> j>„ J jg
N'anjtle v. Lord Fingal, 62
Nash r. Karl of Derby. 65
-National Cash Register Co. v. Thee-

inaii. 381
NatioiiaJ Co. c. (;ihl)s. 331
National -Mantire Co. Donald, 548
National Phonograph Co. ,.. Edi-
son Bell Consolidated

National Phonograph Co. of Aus-

tialia r. .Menck. 339, 483
National, &c., Plate (llass Assurance
t o. r I'riKlential Assurance Co.,
■i4, 4.!. 4,'>. 1<».")

National" Starch Co.. He 'iCr'
~~ V. Munn's Co.. 381," 382"
T62"'U P**""* Co. ... Baker,
ro ".tfi.r"" ^wxxn

Natural CoNnir Kinematogranh Co

'■• Speer. 345 ^
Nealo V. Cripps. 102
N.^th Canal Co. r. Yiiisardwed,

&<•., Colliery Co.. 108
Nci d r. Hendon U. D. C.. 3O6
Aei I Devonshire (Duke), 271
Aeilsoii Betts. 386, 674

• r. Ilornimaii, 412

r. 'I honipson, 348

Nelson /• Salisbury, l{ly., II5

— »'. Uorssani. 087

Nerot r. Buriiand, 626
Nevanas p. Walker. 466. 460
NeviU V. Studdy, 699
Newall r. Elliott, 334
- <: Wilson. 343, 344
-New by v. Harrison. 660, 683

6m"*"* Att..G«D„
Newcastle (Duke) v. Worksop, 316.

Newcomen v. Cottlion. 279. 280
674 '
Newdigate (^olliery Co., Be, 542
New (iold Coast Co., Re, 640, 693
-Newhaven Local Board v. New-

haven School Hoard, 143
New Imperial Hotel Co. r. .Johnson

177.203,204
Newling v. Dolwll. 454, 463
Newman e. Newman & Co.. ifo. 5*3

r. Pinto. 378. 381

V. Ring. 689

tABLm or 0A8M.

Newmarch v. Brandling, 497

New Inverted Incandescent Can

Lamp Co. t'. Howlett, 341
New MoRR Colliery v. Mancliegt«r
Corporation, 223

V. Manchester Rly., Co., 221

New Prance and Garrard's Trus-
tee V. Hunting, 523, 624
New River Co. v. Johnson, SS2
New Sharkton CollieriM Co. p.
Westmoieluid (Eari), 209, 217,
218

Xewun V. Pender, 27, 31, 183, 196,
661

Kewton, Re, 634, 836

V. (^ubitt, 312, 313, 314

V. Newton, 626, 629, 633

V. Nock. 497

New Travellers' Chambers v. Cheeae.
620. (537

New VViiidHor (Mayor) v. Stowell,
243

V. Taylor, 315

New York Tukab Co., Bt, 645,
576

Nichol V. Stockd^, 412
NichoUu V. Chamberlain, 259
Nieholk v. Nieholb, 276, 277
Niehoh v. Manland, 266

r Pitman, 410

• V. Stretton, 460

Nicholson i-. Knapp, 501, 598
Nickson r. Dolphin, 525
Nicoll ti. Beaumont, 308

V. Beere, 454

V. Fenning, 486, 489

Nield V. L. & N. W. Rly., 266

Niemann v. Harris, 654

Niger Merchants' Co. v. Capper

620. 637
Nireaki Tamaki v. Baker. 112
Nisbet I!. Golf Agency, 391, 405
Nisbet and Pott's Contract, He, 483
^ 484, 48.5, 492

Nobel's Kxplosives Co. r. .Tones

331, 334, 336
Norbury (Lord) v. Kitchin, 235, 238
Nordenfelt v. Gardner, 41, 341
». Maxim-Nordenfelt Gnn Co.,

460. 452, 453
Nore.v t'. Keep. 529
Norfolk (Duke of) t'. Tennant, 167
Norman r. .lohnRoii, 520

• V. Mitchell, 547, 558

Normandy v. Ind Coope it Co., 670,

673, 576, 577
Normanshaw v. Noimanilunr, 606
Normanville v. Stannteg, 676
Norm «. ChamitiM, II, 12
». (toBoad, 634

North V. Great Northern Rly., 627
Northam v. Hurley, 258
Northam BridM and Road Co. v.
London and South Weatem BIy..

29 '
North and .South Shield* Feny Co.

V. Barker, 311
North British Rlv. v. Budhill Coal
Co., 59, 222, 224, 225. 227

V. Todd, 130

North British Rubber Co. v. Gor-
mully, 329, 333, 347, 348,
356

V. Macintosh, 339

North Cheshire, &c.. Brewery Co.

V. Manchester Brewi rv. 582
North London Hly. v. ( ; r.-at Northern
Rly., 4', 5, 7, 631

V. Metropolitan Board of

Works. 118

t'. Vestry of St. Mary, 299

North Shore Rly. v. Pion, 231, 269
North Staffordshire Rly. Co. p.

Hauley Corporation, 263
Xorthiimberlaiid (Duke) i-. Bowman,

25

North Western .Salt Co. v. Elec-
trolytic Alkali Co., 450, 469

Norton v. Cooper, 76

p. Daahwood, 68

p. London and North Western

Rly., 162

V. Nicholls, 26

V. Norton, 609, 611

Norwich (Mayor of) ». Norfolk Kly.,
438

Nottingham Patent Briek Co. p.

Butler. 486 — 490
Nugget Poliah Co. v. Harboro'

Rubber Co., 367
Nuneaton Local Board p. General

Sewage Co., 476
Nunn V. D'Albuquerque, 40, 354.

3^5, .-IS 7

Nussey v. Provincial Bill PostiuK
Co., 445, 498 *
Nutbrown v. Thornton, 627
Nutt p. Eaaton, 638, 541
Nnttall p. Bracewell. 232, 235. 248

Oake^ v. Dalton. 376
Oberrheinische MeluUwerke Co. p.

Cocks, 29, 31, 183, 659
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 89
O'Callaghan r. Balrothery, 237

V. Barnard, 678

Oeean Accident and Guarantee

Corporation «. Ilford Gas Co.,

109, 110, 153, 646
Offln p. Roekferd B. C, 306

Ogileii c. KosKick, 428, 477, 47», 481
<)K<l»!ns r. N'clsoii, 4;iit
Ogle t>. Braudling, 640
O^ton V. Aberdeen TrmmwayB Co.,
162

Oldaker v. Hunt, 260
Oldfield V. Cobbett, .519, 680
O'Leary v. Deatiy, 450
Oliver v. Lowther. 633

i: Oliver. 408

Ollfiidorf i: HUi k. 17
Onlcy 1. tiarilirifr, 100, |<)|
Oorcftiini Co. ,-. Kopcr, ."iti.^i
Opeiisbaw r. I'ickorijig, 3tt2
Oram v. Hutt, 606
Oriental Inland Steam Co,. Ee
620

Oriental Steamship Co. v. Tyler,
437

Origuial Hartlepool Collieries Co.

V. Ciibb, 270
Orlwpola, Ae, aa2

Ormerod f. Todmorden. &c., Mill
«b 22- 232, 233. 234. 238. 238.
^58, 665

Orr Ewing t'. Colquhoun, 229. 231,
233

V. .Ii»bnKton, 383, 384

Osbcnir r. Amalgamated Society

(if Railway ServatifH, .327*,

60.x 606

r. Bradley, 24, 78, 433, 434.

435, 441, 488. 491. 493.
494, 495

r. VVige, 288

Osmond v. Hirst, 341

Osram Lamp ("o. t'. Smith, 343

Otiraui I.,ani[i Works v. " Z " Elec-
trie Lamp ( O., 356

Otto r. Sti'vU: 3,-).')

Out ram v. Maude, 285

V. lAtndoii Evening News-
papers Co., 366. 374

Ouvah Ceylon Eatat^a Co. r. i va
Ceylon Rubber Co.. 367, 580. .-,81

Overton i: Bum. 644

Owen r. Faversham Corporatiim.
17(», 270

Oxford and Cambrid <e ITniTetMitieH
r. (iill, 37f,

■ I'. Hiebai'd»oii. .•128

Oxley V. Holdeii, 338
Oyers «. Uanaon, 206

Packinuton .'S Cine, 89

Palace Tlieatred i-. Clensv, 18 27

Si. 4.J.J, 495
I'aliu c. (iather'-ole. OHO
Palmer r. Uua<l.^i, 2»S

C7 C.4BES.

Palmer v. Hendrie, S38

r. L. B. & 8. C. Rly., 5S2

r. .Mallett. 453, 464

Panhard. &e., Co. v. Panhud Motor

Co., 367. .581
Pardoe v. Pardoe, .52. 71, 74, 84
Parederi v. Lizard i, 678
Paris V. Lymington Rural Council.
300

Paris Chocolate Co. r. Crratal Palace

<'o., 470
Parker r. Calcraft. 644
i: Dunn, 79

r. First Avenue Hotel Co..

181

I'. River Dun Navigation Co..

473

r. Stanley, 45, 46

V. \Vhyte, 430. 444, 486

Parkes f. Stevens. 340
Parnell r. Parnell. 616
Parr v. Att.-tJen., 58.5, 587

V. Lane, and Cheshire Miners.

:i27. 602. 605. 606
Purnitt V. Palmer. 38. .50, 60, 7.5. 94.

05, 173
Parry and Hopkins, Re, 66
Parsons v. (dottrel!, 455
Partridge v. Scott, 210
Piisniore r. Oswaldtwistle, 171
I'jitehing r. Dubbins. 434
Pat man r. Harland. 485
I'adison v. Cilford. 17. 430
Payler r. llomersham, 437
Payton i-. .Sneliing. 381
Paynter v. Cvew, 530
Peacock v. Peacock, 531
Peak Hill Golufleld Co.. Re, 537
Pearce r. Crutchfield, 634

i: .Scotcber, 271

r. Wycombe Rlv., 133

Pearks r. t 'ullen, 450.' 457, 463
Pearson r. Spe u-er, 277, 278, 290.
201

Pease i: Coates, 447
Pecbel f). Fowler, 621
Peek V. London School Board, 276,
277. 290

Pedley r. Road Block, 8tf>., Co.. S70,
571

Peek i: Matthew*. 434. 495
Peel. Re. 523

Pell i: Nortbampton, Banburv. tee.

Rly., 1.38
Pcmberton .ind Cooper. Re, 62, 684
Pena Copper Mines v. Rio Tinto Co.,

611.612
Pender r. LuahingtoR, 576, H79
I Penn v. Bibby. Sf
I PenneU v. Koy, 7, ttlS, 618

tABLB or CAgU.

P<iiiiin){ton I'. Krinnop Hall Coal

Co.. 239. 260, 261
Penny v. S. E. Hly. Co.. 182
Penrhyn (Mayor) v. lient. 315, 317
Pentlaad v. Somerville, 7S
Pentney r. Lynn Paving Commui-

xionere, lr)2
Ppi'cival r. Phippg. 409
P»*rkin» r. .slater, 197
IVils r. .-aiiili. ia, 436, 438, 451, 460
IVirctt r. Rmlford, 445
Pcrrott i: Periott. 52. 71
Perry v. EaineH, 190, 194

V. Hewin, 378, 380

V. Shipway, S24

V. Tniefitt, 378

)•. Weller. 649

Perth Ceneral .Station Committee v.

RoKs, 130
I'iru Kepiiblie r. Peruvian (Juano

Co.. 60«

Peruvian (iuaiio Co. r. Bockwoldt.
612

Peseod v. Pe«cod, 632

— — Westminster Corporation.

140, 141
Peter v. Kendal, 312, 313, 314
Pethick t>. Plymonth Corporation,

206

Petley v. Eastern Connttos RIy., 78,
649

Peto V. Brighton, Uckfleld, and Tun-
bridge Wells Rly., 433, 476, 481
Petty I'. Daniel, 688
Pliey«ey v. Vicary, 276, 277, 292
Philip V. Pennell. 408, 409
Philippart v. Whitcley, 362, 376
Phillimore t'. Watford U. D. C, 262
Phillip's Charity, Be, 026
PhiUips V. Batho. 11

V. hury, 595

1>. Crouch, 205

V. Great Western Rly., 490

V. Homfray, 94, 145

— - V. Low, 186, 277

V. Smith, 63. 64, 78

— V. Thomas, 18, 49, 105, 158

r. Treeby, 107. 497

Philpot V. Bath, 267
I'hipo,-* V. Callegari, 485
Phipps V. .lackson. 64, 428, 432, 478
PhfiBoix Life Assoe., Re, 648
Phosphate of Lime Co. v. Green, 561
Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 432.
477

p. StepboDun, 564

Piekford r. Grand Jnaetioii RIt..

662

Pidding r. How. 378
Pidgeley v. Rawling, 53, 54

Pierce v. Franks. 42, 386
Piers I'. Piers, 86

Piggott t'. (Jreat Weatera Rly. Co.,
123

e. Middlesex County Council,

22. 23, 114. 119. 14.5. 159,
166, 167, 174

V. Stratton, 471

Pigot V. Bullock, 96

Pike, Re, 622

V. Cave, 659

t'. Xieholas, 405. 406, 416

IMIkington v. Scott, 460

V. Yeatley Vacunm Hammer

Co., 365

Pim V. Curell, 312

Pinehin v. London and Blackwall

Rly.. 19. 113. 122, 126, 130
Pmet t'. Maison Louis Pinet, 366,

366, 384
Pinniiigtoii r. Calland, 289
Pirie & Co. V. Kintore (Earl), 231,

233, 236, 243, 244
Plake V. Hall, 152
Plan.t V. James, 276
V. Stott, 108

Plating Co. v. Farqnhanon. 853,

693

Pledge t'. Pomfret, 230
Plumbly V. Perryman, 510
Plymouth (Countess of) v. Archer,
91

Plympton v. Malcolmson, 345

t'. Spiller, 27, 346, 348, 641

Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Goodman,
332

1. Marwood, 344

ti. Warrilow, 347

Polo r. .Joel, 665
Polini V. Gray, 32, 670
Pollard V. Clayton, 433
f. Gme, 187

«'. Photographic Co., 407, 408

Pokue V. Rushmer. 176, 177, IW,

209, 203, 204. 207
Pomeroy v. Scal6, 372. 373
Pomfret v. Ricroft. 184, 288
Ponsardin i'. Peto, 383
Poole r. HuNkisKon, 299, 301. 302,

303

Pooley V. Budd, 627
Pope, Re, 644

V. Vurl, 408

r. Whalley, 318

Poplar Corporation v. Millwall Doek

Co.. 142. 304
Popplew .]) Hodgkinson, 211
Portarlington (Earl of) r. Soulby, 11,

611,612

Portland (Duke of) t;. Hill, 60, 61

TABLE OF CASKS.

Portamonth W«terwork8 Co. t

L B. and .S. C. Rly, Co., 230, 232!

213. 238 240. 242: 244, 257
i otter r. Chapman, 598
I'ottK V. Ivevy. 18. 26, 157, 182

— r. PottH, 6.56

V. Siiiifh. 181

Poulet t'. Chatto, 510

Poulton r. Adjustable Cover Co..

3oI

Pountney v. Clayton. 226
PoweU». Aiken. 38. 1()8, 146, 499
■ V. Birmingham Brewery, 357.
369, .',86

— I'. IIonHley. 46. 440, 474. 493,

■ V. VVilliaiiis. 667

V. Wrifjlit. 626

■'*T*i?-.?'i*7." ^*'''"» " '"al < <>• '■•
TaffVale Kly., 137. 432

Powers e. Bathurst. 302

I'owley V. Walker, 63

I'ow.vH V. Blafp-ave, 66

I'ratI r. Brett. 63

- — I'. \Valker, 651. 659

Iremier Hiiiks ( «. ,, Amalgamated

I meniatojfritph Co., 449

Prexland r. Buigham, 192

Prestner «>. Coloheeter Corporatwn.

Preston (C()rporation of) v. Full-

wood Local Board, 308
•—- r. Liu k, 2, 501
Pnce V. Bala, &c.. Rly., 493. 496,
409, 500

i: (Jreeii, 454, 460

V. H.itehinHon, 693
Price's Patent Candle Co. ,-. London
38. 47, 149. 160,

255;S2T^S^8^'^««'"»'^^"'

Pridjfeon r. Mellor, 112
Prie.stley v. Kllin, .'523, 524
Prince r. Lewin. SI8
Proctor r. Bayley, lag. 328, 350
354, 427

V. BenniK, 23. :J7, 329, 332

334, 341, 350, 355

V. HodgHon, 290

V. Sargent, 465

• V. Smilen, 506

Pwwwr r. Bark of Kiisland, 621
"otheroe^iY'roaenhain. &c., Rly.,

Proud r. Bates, 58. 213. 279, 284
Provident Clothing Co. v. Maaon

453. 458
Prynne. He, 069
Pryor r. Petre, 230, 305
Prytherch, Bt, 544

Public Works CommiHsioners i: Hill
466, 467

PiuUey UaM Co. ,-. Corporation of
Bradford. 151. r,n{t

Pugh I'. Arton, 68

V. Colden Valley Rly.. l.fr,

V. Riley Cycle Co., 422. 426

V. Vaughan, 7a

Pnlbrook v. Riehmond Mining Co.,
657. 558. 560

Piiljej-nc r. France, 434, 49o

Pulujig r. London. Chatham, and
L>over Kly., 126

Palteney v. Shelton, 63

Punt V. Symona, 676, 676

Pnrcell t>. Xash, 69

Pyeroft i-. Pyeroft. 656
I I'ye r. liritiwh AutoinohiJe .-^vndieate
j -too. 467, 468

yi'.AHTZ Hill .Mining Co. v. lieall 6
509, .")llt. .-)! 1 ■ '

Que.u Anne Residential Mansions
444 ^^««toM»rter Corporation.

QuickC V. Chapman. 18.5. 186, 188
Qum and Aston v. Salmon, 577
Qumcey, Ex parte, 67
<2ninn «. Leathern, 324. 326

R: lie. 671

Kaclcliffe c. Duke of Portland, 178
Rakusen v. Ellis & Co.. 50.5, 607
Kaieigh f. (Joschen. 7, 112
Ralph, Re, 369, 375
Ranie«hur. &e.. Singh v. Koonig.

247. 248. 249 *
Ranwden v. Dyson, 21, 22, 23
— v. Manchester, &c., Rly.. 124
Kamsgate Corporation v. Debling.

2/4 *

Randall «•. Bradley, .582, 583
V. Commercial Rly., 649

Raiigeley v. Midhind ^ly., 134, 3(»4
Kaiiger v. Great Western Rly., 466
Kanken r. East and West India

Docks Co., 128
Rankin v. HuHkisson. 442, 497
Hanson r. Piatt. 646
Rantzen r. Rothschi d, 692

Rapier t>. London itamwaya Co.,

Raple.V r. Smart. 201. 446
KatcliiTe V. Evans, 612

— V. Winch. 610
Rawsfrnn v. Tavlor, S47 2.5! "ss
Kay V. Hweldine, 188, 280^ 290
Bayne v. Benediet, «S«

TABI.B or CABm.

Riiyiici r. Steimey I'urporstkm,

113. U42
Read v. Blunt, 520
V. Bowera, 631

- - - f. Prirndly Society of Stuiie-
muMong, 32')

Hondo r. Boiitloy, 398, HOit

I'. ConquoHt, 415
Kcddawttv r. Buiiliaiii. 357, 365,
37'». .'i-i4

V. Flynii, 5(t8, 640

RedlieiMl v. Wulton. 61U
Redler v. (J. W. Ky. Co., 233, 237
Reeee r. Milit i 229, 271
Reeve I', .loiiiiinjis, 455

r. .MarNli. 4fl4

licovos r. Cjittoll. 444
Keg. V. J{ott«. 26!)

V. RirmiiiKhaiii iiiid Oxford

Junction Kly., 120, 130

V. Bradford NaTigation Co.,

163

V. Chester (Dean). 5M

r. Chorley. 291, 292, 293

V. Clement, 639

- - r. Cross, 2(11, 2<»3

r. Darlinjfton Board of HcaltL,

166

V. Uariington .School, ,',26

V. Dover, 5

V. East and West India Docks

and Kly., 160

r. Eastmark Tything 299, 30i

■ r. (ireat Northern Rljr., 128

r. (iyngall, 634, 635

t'. Halifax C. ('.. 14

r. Hertford Coll., 59."), 596

V. Judge, Lincolnshire County

C'ourt, 610

17. Londii: iiid South Western

Rly., 122, 126

V. Longton Ga« Co.. 206, 308

f. Metropolitan Boaid of

Work«, 252

t'. Niel, 201

V. Payne, 693

Petiie, 299, 301, 302

f. Pierce, 201

V. Poulter, 119

V. Roeheater (Deui and Chap-
ter of), 697

V. Train, 308

V. United Kingdom Telegraph

Co.. 306. 308

V. Woods and Forests (Com-

sioneis of). 121, 122

Regent's Canal Co. v. Ware, 123

t'. London County CotucU,

127

Reiehel v. Magrath, 609

I lioid i\ nickorxtaff, i:;4, 443, 486,
487, 488, 489, 490, 491
Retnhardt v. MentastJ, 35. 41. 155.
200, 206

Remfrey v. SunreTor-Oeneral of

Natal, 268
Remmington «. Seolaa. 800
Honals r. CowUahaw, 48S, 487, 489,

490, 491

Konard v. Loviiistoin, 330, 343. 348
Kendall v. Crystal Palace Co., 686
Rendell v. Blair, 527. 598

V. Grundy. 680

Rennie «. Yoaog, 23
Rex V. Baker, 323

V. Barr, 325

V. Bartholomew, 308

t'. Biightoii Corporation. 116.

117, 588

r. ( atherine Hall, 595

V. Dolby, 592

V Dunstan, 67

Education Board, 598

e. Ely (Bishop of), 695

V. Hungcrford Market Co., Ill

V. Leake, 298

t'. New, 636

V. Pagham (Commissioners of

Sewers for). 256, 272

V. Registrar of (Companies, 580

V. Salop (Inhabitants of), 296

V. South Holland Diainage,

V. Starkey. 317

V. Walker, 636

V. Wall, 323

V. Ward 269

t'. White, 201

V. Wigand. 692

V. WiltM and Berks Canal 310

— t!. Wright 306

Key V. Lecouturier, 360, 372, 384
Reynell v. Sprye. 644. 880
Reynolds v. Ashby. 69, 70

f. Barnes, 65, 293, 810, 478

V. Bridge, 467

f. Clarke, 148

V. Pre«tcign D. C, 307, 308,

309

Rhyniney Rly. Co. V. Tall Vale Kly.

Co., 138

Ribbte River Committee «. HaOi-
wen. 266

Rice's Case, 74
Richard v. Graham, 80
Richards v. Butcher, 376
••. Culleme. 14

— V. Noble, 75

t'. Platel, 546

V. Revitt, 435, 494

TABLE or CAHE8.

HichardH r. Ku liarUw, I 'it
• V, Roae, 214

~Vo ""ij^*"*®* '"•Proviiiu-ul, &(•..

RichantMoii. A>, fl2i, Mfl

• r. Ardley, M

*■• 103, 104. J8fl,

'•• lla«tiii({s, ,">28

r. Methloy ScluKtl Hoard 5

V. Murphy, 447

Riche e. Aahburn Klv. Co., .-,n4
Kiefamond W«terwork>« ( '«. c. Xortli

London RIy., 122
7.77 '•• ^'e«try of RioLmond. 872
Ku kard« r. Lothian, 233. SSfl
Ku kpttK l^ Knflpld, 493
KidRc, In re, 71

Kidgway v. Amalgamated IW.
366. 367. 374

■ r. Roberts, 627

Rigall IT. Foster, 021
Ri«by V. Bennett. 213, 214
1'. (^nnol, 600

Hi^dfii V. .loiiew. M't, 37(»
Kiley V. Halifax forporation. 20

34. 114, 673
R'Dle Jriffitli. 359
Ripo:. .arl of) r. Hobart. 17, 18.

26, 148. 137, 253

" Co. V. North

Midland Rly., 1 13

Rivett V. (iriiiishaw, 423
Riviiijftoii ( . (iarden, 42
Robb f. lircoii, 389, .-503, 304, 507
Kobbiug V. iie«, 303
Roberts r ,zon, 627
V. Cj. , 300

r. Charing Cross, Eustou. &n.,

Kly. Co., 138, lao, 161,
166. 168

V. Eberhardt, 535

V. FellowPs, 234, 236, 242, 246

V. liraydon, 344

■ V. Gwyrfai DUtrict Council.

33. 237. 238. 682

V. Haines. 209

V. Holland!, 153

V. James, 276, 286

». Richards, 237, 248

V. Roberts. 73. 632

Robertson v. Hartopp, 62

— - «. WiUmott. 464, 463, 464

Robinson t. Balmain New Perry
Co., 312

». Byron (Lord), 258

V. Finlay, JU

V. Own, m

KobinsoM v. Hciut, 430
- - 1: Litton, 4N

^ r. London (i. iuTal Omnibu

Co., 201, 204, 206. 681, «n

■ i". I'lrki'iing. fi21(

Smith and Ritchie. 336

"■ill. II aiiii ni[fni<>,
KobuiHon'H .Settlements, 03

tk'm!^

Kol)Kon r. Dodds. .5.-1O
- '■• Kd wards, 193
Rochdale Canal Co. v. Kinu. 21 22
23. 24. 26. 34.

.).)6

*. MuiK li»-«ter Skip Canal Co.,

u . " «*8. -..-.6

I Kodcrick V. Aston Local Hoard. 181
Rodger f. Herbertson, 466
Rodgera v. Nowill. 366
I ,7— ' • Rodgers. 388
Rodgers (.loseph) & .Sons v. J.

Kodgers Simpson, 365, 366
Rogers r. Challi«, 431

V. Dock Co. of Hull, 119

t'. I)riiry, 462

f. Hosegood. 443. 484, 485

402. 403

V. Maddoeka, 400

f. Spence. 104

Rogers' Trmle Mark. He, 371
Rolte V. Peterson, 469
— — I'. Rolfe, 454
Rolls V. Miller, 444
—^v. School Board for London,

Rolt V. SomerviUe, 86
Rooke e, Dawson, 627. 608
Roper f. Williams, 434, 404
Rose f. Huckett, 154

I', (iroves. 294

— V. Loftus, 42

Law Guarantee and Trust

Ross r. Adcock. 81

I'. Buxton, 674, 676

- — V. 8herer, 621, 628
Roswell's Case, 48
Rothes (Counte«s of) v. Kirkcaldr

VVaterworks Co., 263
Rothwell f. King, 343
Roundwood ColEeries Co., Be, 610
RoiuiUen V. Ronsillon. 10, 462
Routh fj. Webster, 636
Rowbotham v. WikoB, 200, 218
Rowe r. Wood. 76
Rowell V. Rowell. 564

r S.ifhrll, 183, 487

Rowland V. Mitchell, 26, 360
Bo<;iatt V. CMtea, MO

7AMM W CAUB.

Roral BaUng Powdw Co. «. Wright,

5] 1

Royal Inauranoe Vn. i; Midtatid

ln*uriuife Co., 368
Iloyal Mail Steam P. ^t To. v.

(icor|{«.. 245
Koyal Warriuit ilolderti v. Dean,
371, 384

I'. KitHoii. 371, 388

r. SliMlo. 371, 381, 382

Ruabou Hrick, ike., Co. v. li. \V

Bly.. 226
RnbeiM r. Path* Prftrw Pathe-

phone, 398
Rudii V. BowIm, 276
Rugby Charity f. Meiryweathcr,

3(M», 3(12
Kundell v. Murray, 22, 333, 413
Rundle r. Ilearle, 273, 303,
Riucoo f. (irounsell, 19U
RuHh V. LucaH, 62
RuHhbrouke v. O'SuIUvan, 431, 432
Riuihni«r v. Pobne Alfleri & Co.,

176, 177, 109, 2(K), 203, 204, 207
Ru88el V. Amalgamated .Sooiety of
Carpeiitent and Joioen,
324. 327, 450

V. East Aufclian RIy., 685, 690

p. Jackson, 503, 504, 605, 606

». RtiMoU, 090

p. WakefleU Watoworka Co..

.'578

c. WattK. 21. 22, 41. 18«, 180
Runtoii V. Tobiii, 067
Ryan I. Mutual Tontine, See.,

Anuoc, 20, 137. 476, 477
Rylanda v. Ffotdier, M4

SABLONliBK HOTZX Co., Re. 619
Saccharui corp. v. Anglo-Contincn-
tiO. ke., 337

p. Chemicab Co.. 386, 674

V. Dawaon, 351

V. Jaekson, 351

■ •. Mack & Co., 361

■ t'. Xational Saccharin Co., 343

p. Uuincey, 361

V. Baitouqrer, 333, 337

Saekett p. Closenbeiv, 426

Sadd V. Maldon, Braintme, tc..

Bly., 133
Sadler «. Great Weetem Rljr., 164
Sam^ V. F«rg«ura, 4S^ 40^ 466,

Saiaman t-. Socretarjr of S^«te for

India, 609
SaUabiiry (Maivik of) «, Oladatone.
60

— -e. Qraat VmeOmu Vtf., UO,
130

Halmon r. Randall, U.'t

Salomon v. .Staluan, 659

MatoraoHH v. Knight, 609

*. LaiiiK, 569, 662

Salt Union r. lirunner Mond, 311.
252, 254

.<<altcr r. M. lropolitau Rly., 127

.SalKTi* r. .lay. 194

Salviii i: North HranceiN^th Coal
i'o.. 17r>. 199. 200

.Samponii r. lioddinott, 234, 236,
238, 240, 244

f. Smith, 200

Sandeman v. Ruahton, 77

Sanders p. Rodway, 448

Sanders-Clark p. (irosvenor Man-
sions Co., 165, 201, 203
SanderHon v. Cockerniouth and

Workington Rly., 118, 432
Sanken »•. Busnack 324
Sanxter v. Foster, 28
Sargant r. Read, 647
Sauer p. Bilton. 104
Saall V. Browne, 8
Saunby p. London (Ontario) Comm.,

20, 114, 166, 672
Saunders p. Newman, 234, 246

p. Smith, 18, 22, 104, SIS, 898.

410, 411, 414

r. Wiel, 423. 425, 426

Saunder's Case, 57
Savarn v. Brindle. 331
SaTiOe v. Kilner, 200
.Savory p. Dyer, 843

p. liuptiran Oil Co., 38, 416. 680

Saxby v. Easterbrook, 33

p. Fulton, 10

Saxlehner i: Apollinaria Co., 386
Sayers r. CoUycr, 24, 433, 441, 4M,

600, 671, 673
Scanlan, He, 836

Scarborough I'orporatiou r. Cooper,
584

Scarisbrick p. Tunbridge, 434
Scheile v. Brakell, 638
Sohlesiiiger v. Bedford, 684

r. Turner, 40, 665

Schmitten r. Faulkea, 661, 676
Sehoole v. Sail, 538
Seiiove V. Sekmiake, 370, 374
.Schweder Worthing Gm Light

and Coke Co., 82, 47. 106, 107,

297, 804. 6M • ^ »

.Schweppcs »•. Oibbena. 381
.Schwinge r. London and Blaek-

wall Rly.. I'S
Scotson 1). (iiiiirv, rt.">2
Scott p. Becher, 619, 523
V. Hull StMB FWitg Co.,

349—361

xlviii

TAHtK OF CAraM.

■^••<<ti I,iv,.,|.,„,| ror|M>r»tion, 436

— — '•• Moxoii. (18.5

r. I'ttiw, KM. in,,

Howlttliil, .V.U

P. Soot I. .5o«, «40. HUl

'' ''fumfonl, 403, 418
S<nllfMl, Xorlh Kii<»,.m RIy. v

S.-.ttiHli f n„M,. (■„. ,.. Srottwh
AiitioiiHl lriniraiic(> Co , guo
Sfuifrttlii I'. KniKlit. 52 !(«
'♦e*fcy r. (ia*foii, h.i.j

Sk-urU"' r. Cboate, 641
'^mt"^ 2'»4. 646. 688.

'*"66o '""'' ''
Setldon r. Hank of Itoltoii,
8elxo r. Pn)vez«-ii(li- ;tfio
Mhy r. ('olne ValL-y and HaUte d

Rly.. 117. 133
- - r. Nettleford, 28S
Spllcrs I'. I)irkin.snii. 342

''''"iT, »' Health.
41. 14... 165, 172. 206. 295

mt. 6..2 •* "•^*'»'

»empU> r i.oiidon and Birmin^wm

Rly.. 153, «77 -"Vmu,
^m"** *79. 281,

UminT r. Pawson, 4.5. 46
.SoptiniuH Parsonage & Co., Re. 640
.•^(•riiKlio. I'Ih", «0:{
.StI i: A< ((.ii L,ical Hoard, 280
ScrvK'p Cantanoila. 847. 675
Sotton r. (iooiUlcii. .■(12. 313
.S<n ill I'. DeiilandoN, 480

^vt^ lif"^ Uxbridge Rly.

.'*o.vrnonr j.. London and South

Wmtcrn Kly., 128
Sliacklftoii r. .Swift. 609
.Shaft o r. liolekow. 18, 64S
Shari) '•• Braupr. r.l7
■ — I'. ^Vate^hollsp, 2r>H
— ^r. Wilson, 231, 233—236. 238,

Shaw, h'jt piirie, 557

^f^y* 103, MI

SLeard v. Webb. 434
Shears c. W' 236

I^niloa, Co..
1 / . 2(». .32, 34. 35, 43, 47. 110 ir,2
Ijy^. I fi8. 18.3. 204. 349. 350.' 662:
6.1 0,3, 070, 682
Shelley v. Wcatbrooke, 684

•♦heppard r. Gilnoif.
SherrinKhain I'. IJ. r. r. HakaT

111. 1.50. 3(12. .3<m ""■•y*

Shicl V. (i xlfrcy. 4.1
ShiiUto r. Larniuth, 344
Shinwell ,.. National Bailon. tu>..

Union. 327
ShipwriKht v. « 'lunientit, 37 1 . 372
Shoo Machinery Co. v. t'utlan, 341)
Shore v. Wilson, 52.5
«hotU Iron Co. ... IngBi, MO. W7
.Shrewsbury and BirmlnghBIB Rly
Kl/.'."5B8" Norti Wertei'
Shrewshiiry and choslfr Rh-, «
.Shrewsbury and llirmincham
Hly.. 17, 475 ^
Sicklemore v. Thtoaleton. 437
Siddon* r. Short, *18. 817
Sidney Clarkaon. 434
- — r. Sidney. (U«. 633
SieijenberK r. Metropolitan Dhtiiet

. Kly. < o., 126
.Siegert r. Findlater. 37«. 381, 507
Sjeveking v. Behrens. nio
ovum ». Evans, 524
aimmona ». Norton, 51, 55, 56, 62
1^' ». Foley. 110, 158. 178, 193,

Simpwn |J|Att.-Oen.. 270, 898, 302,

r. Dend.v, .3(»5

V. Denison. 138, 566, 567

t'. Hodmanohester (Mayor),

242, 244

V. Lancaster Riy.. 120

V. Savage. 110

• '•• Simpson. 96

'■• South Staffordsliirc Kly Co

113 ' •'

P. .South StafTordshin- Water-
works Co., 116, 134
— — I'. ^Vestrninstcr V :la<<. Hotel
. ' '>.. •'■'•■.!•. 561, 56!l
••^'"ger Manufacturing Co. i-. Uritish
£mpire JfaDufaeturine
< o., 381 " .
- — I'. Looe. 370. 379
!-u.Ker .SowuiK Machine Manufac-
tunng Co. V. Wilson. 878. 383

.^jtwell i'. Londesborough (Earl), 08
, , ?y Parson*. 69, 224

•>io, 017

Sluttnem' Sm^jr v. likh Society.

ilix

m. 415
H74. an. 6M

Kkip ;•. Harwonil. HMfl
Hkiill I. <il».iiiiil« r. 2T.'>. 283
Hiwle c. 'I'unier, WIS
HUzpiigcr V. Ki-ltham, 3H4

' r. l'i){ott. 3«8

— - t: Spalding, 83. 40. 382. S»3,

.'185, 38«, 387, 4 IB, ««4, Mft
Hl«ilj{e I'. I'oinfn^t, 2U3
Hl<<«- r. < 'urporation of Bradford, «7«
HlinK«l>.v r. Bradford Patent Tnick

Co., 413
Hloan V. HoUlday, 283
Mmallroan r. Oniuna, 72
Kmait r. .Smart, •34. 63S
Hniitli, (Bull t. Smith). 00
8mitli (Bnllttn), Rt, 044
Smith r. Andrfwn, 271.
r. Baxter. 28, Hf,'

lit:. tiHi

r. I'Lutto. 40.)

• t. Day, 2!i. 4,-,

r. EU»i. 1»2

> ». Co^lv, 148

», Or»»( W««terB Rly., 225, 217

' e, Hancock, 404

—— r. Ilowiicii, 304

V. .IcycK, r>:i I . .53.")

• r. Kciirick. i'.">4

• II. Loiidtiii and Nortli W .•nh rn

l(lr.. 'i n

• ». Luiiduii Mid Sunth W«»teiii

Hly., 333

• ». Maenally, 825, 526

• V. Manchester (Duke), 5f4

• V. Midland Rly., 137, 200

■ V. (twpii, 182

• r. I*et»Ts, 5(»2

• V. Smith, 23. 37. 42. 4"). 47

634. 672

• r. Swan»ea iJtick r,,., 655

-— e. Thomawton. 323

». Weguelin, 8

■ V. Wibon. ISO, 300

SniithieR r. National AHo«i^ion of

Pll»l^t^r^'^^. 326
.'5niollcir» Irade Mark. «§, 378
Sraythc V. Tarter. 64

• V. Smythe, 89

Hnare v. fe.tarc. .527

>Saow V. Whiteliead, 2S4

Kuug^ V. Seyd, 41

Sobay v. Saiaabary. 434, 486. 485

Socitt^ ABonyme. Ste., de I'Etoile.

Se, 384
Soci^t6 Le Ferment, Rt, 362
Society, &c., de (ilacen ti. TU^man,

338, 317

Solicitor, lie A, 688 i
Soltau V. De Held, 149, 180, 161,
156, 176, 2U4, 645

X.I

I SomrrHct ,: (.. \V. Klv. ( .... 2M, 28S
I Homt rvillc . .Scli(.||,|,,| .ihk
i .SoliKhuptt I'. J)ix..v. 7H

.Sonneii»cliem r. Harnard, 40. 41

.Houth AfriTtti, T«rrtoriM C*.
H altmgtoii, 431

)^mih EmtM Khr. ». AMoeiatad
' i^MonA Ca., 888

- - ••• Wifn. M*. 888

,Soitth of Engtel Dairie* Co. r.

MHHT, 486
Ho»rtfc*y I. Shcrwii.^ 4I3
tSmithport Uai kiiiu Co. r. T!i..mi>-

•«,««. 70
SouWl MetroptWitaii (Vm.'tcrv Co.

r. Kden, 282
.SoiiUi \Vale« Hnien' Federation i-.

«>laitiiirKan Coal Co., 325
South Wale. Kly. 1 . Redmond. 588

U'vfli.., 428. 431
><>iitl.»ark. AC. WatM t'„. ,..

VVaiidHWorth Hoard ..t '\urk-

l.W. 21 -., 216
Ho V.rkshirc lily. A ,-. (.reut
n Rly., 588

Xpacknia"! <•. Evans, 561

'■. J..attimM«, ,'567
SfialdinK !•■ tiamaR*', 3.59

'■. Kccly,

.><paiiwh (ien'crui .\i;..ncv r Sp.iniMh

Corp., 6.51. BTs
l^parrow i-. (Jxlord, Worcester, and

WoIverhamptMi 81y., 17, 121,

Spaul r. Monopole Cycle Co,. 329.
349, 350. 355

.•Spencer 1: Ancoatu Vale Co., 353

r. Holt, 343. 34.5

- r. London and liirminKhani
l!ly.. 2!)

penny moor Foundry Co. v. Ca-

theraU. 130
.Spieer p. Martin, 475. 487 — 490
.SpierH V. Brown. 410
.Spoke« f. Banbury Board of Haaiyi,

261, 684, 08.5, 692
.X[Mitti>»woode t: Clark. 374, 411
.SpraKUc . Booth, 437
.Spriiijttield .Spinning Co. ». Sfley, 8
Squier v. Mayer, 67
Squire v. Campbell, 1 1.56
St.^AlbaBB (Bishop of) r. Battersby,

Albana (Dnke of ) r. Skipwith,

.51, 80 ^
St. Helen's Smeltinjt Co. e. ItpBiBC,

177, 199," 203. 204
St. .lohn'a CaOcm «. Toddtagtaa.

695

d

1

TABLE 6t Ck6^

St. Mary, Islington (Vestrj) v.

IIoriiHey t'. I). V., 694
St. Mary. X»wiiigton (Vestry) r.

•lacobK. 2!»7
St. Mary's Viwtry, Hattcrsca v.

County of London and lirutih

Kloctrir ] jjihthic Co.. 141. 142
St. 'I'lioniua' Hospital v. Charing

CroM Rly., 126, 127
St. Victor V. Devereux, 678
Staepy c. SluTrin. 283
.•^tackniann i: I'aton, 395, 408
StadharU v. Lee, 438
Stafford (Marquis of) v. Covney, 301.

302

Staffiinlsliiro County Council v.
.Si'isdou K. D. C, 267, 268

Staffordshire and VVorcestersliire
Canal Co. v. Birmingham
Canal Co., 250, 556

r. Bradley, 106, 259, 263

f^tasg r. Medway Navigation, 548

Staijrht v. Uurn, 1!»6

.Slaiiiton r. W oolrycli, 160, 108

Stani|>s r. Hirniingham and Stour
Valley Kly., 12(1, 6.53

Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban
Coancil, 35, 47, 261, 682, 692, 693

Standard Bank of S. A. v. Standard
Bank, 367, 581

Standard Bank. &«. e. Stokea, 216

.'^taiidish •'. Mayor, See., of Liver-
pool. 114

Stanford c. llurlntone, 102

."Stanley r. Coulthuist, 92

Stanley (Lady) r. Lord Shrewsbury,
43. 674

Stanley of Alderky (Lord) v. WUd,
14

Stanuard c. Canibcrwcll Vestry, 6,
!t. (ilo

r. Vestry of St. (iiles, 6

Stanslicid r. llaborKliani, 71, 74
Stanton >■. Canon Co., 5J9
Staple I-. lleydoii , 277
Staples r. Easlnian I'hoto. Co., 565

V. Vouiig, 59

Stapleton v. Foreign Vineyard Aggo-

oiation. (i:i8
.Starkey r. Hartoti. 431
.statliarn r. liiijrhtiin Miniiie Co.,
.".ti.")

* • r. Kaekw ar nl liaroda, 630
Stedall r. Houghton. -1(»7
.Stead »'. Anilerson, 334

». Clay, 621
Stednian v. Smith. 216, 241

r. Webb. .'•)45
.Steedinau r. I'oole, 675
Steele t>. Midland lUy., 127

Steele v. Mayor of liiverpoo), )2l

V. North Metropolitan Ely.,

13, 471, 472
Stephens v. Mysore Reefs Mining

Co., 570, 671

I'. Workman, 694

Stephenson c. Garnett, 609
Sterry v. Clifton, 437
Stevens, Re, 520

V. Benning, 398, 399

V. Brett, 417

V. Chown, 8, 9, 320, 687

f. South Devon lUy., S65,

566, 567, 574

I'. Stevens, Ht6

t . Theatres, Lini., 540, 626

V. Wildy, 392, 406

Stevens (William) & Co. V. Cassell

& Co., 366, 374
Stiff V. Cawwll, 432, 442
Stiles V. Eoclestone, 14, 456, 470
Stirling v. Maitland, 439
Stockdale i'. Onwhyn, 413
Stocker v. Brocklebank, 478

V. Planet Building Society, 104

Stockport Waterworks Co. v. Mayor,

&e.. of MMiehester. 151,

550

V. Potter, 232, 241, 258

Stockton and Darlington Bly. v.

Brown, 116, 168
Stockton and Hartlepool Bly. v.

Leeds and Thirsk Rfy., 13
Stockton FootbaD Co. «. Gaston.

689

Stocks V. Wilson, 626
Stoke Parish Council v. Price, 1 10,
111

Stokes fi. City Offices Cc, 197
Stone V. Broadfoot, 340, 341

V. Commercial Rly., 118, 120

Storer v. Great Western Rly., 496,
499

Stourbridge Canal Co. ti. Lord Dud-
ley, 221, 226
Stourcliffe Estates Co. f. Bourne-
mouth Corporation, 589
Stourton v. Stotxrton, 635
Strachey v. Frantic, 80, 81
Strathmore (Lady) f. Bowes, 89
Street r. I'nion Ban! of .Spain, 366.
638

Strelly r. Pearson, .">02, 670
Stretford V. I). C. r. Manchester

Soutli .hinetion Kly. Co., 298
Stretton r. Cr.at Western, Sic.,

Rly., 115, 119, 130
StriWoy v. Hawke, 1
Striok V. City Offieea Co.. t79
Stride *. Martin, 453, 455

TABLB or CASKS.

Stroud t). Roy«d Aon.vinin, 670, 576
Stroud V. Want -.^rth Bo»rd of

Works, 116. 118
Strutt V. Bovingdon, 244
Stuart t;. I>jplock, 448

V. IlaUtead, 457

•Stubbs ti. Slater, 539
Studdert v. Grosvcnor, 564
Stupart V. Arrowgmith, 560
Stnrge v. Eastern Union Rly., 566
Sturgeon v. Hooker, 676
Stnrgea v. Bridgman, 177, 203, 204,
207

V. Warwick (Countess), 630

Sturz r. De la Hue, 346

Sudlow t'. Dutch Rhenish Rly., 617

Suffield V. Brown, 290

Sugg V. Silber, 667

Summers v. Boyce, 503, 504

Sunderland v. Newton, 66

SateMe v. Booth, 248

Sutton V. Mumford, 650

t'. Mayor, &o., of Norwich, 113

V. South Eastern Rly., 552

Swaine r. (Jieat Northern Rly., 164.
200 J ' '

Swale V. Swale, 527
Swansborough v. Coventry, 186, 188
Sweet V. Benning, 403, 404

V. Cator, 31

V. Ely (Bishop), 508

— — V. Maugham, 392

V. Shaw, 403, 404, 411

Sweetman t'. Metr >politun Rly., 128

Swift V. Swift, 4<6

Si^indon Waterworks Co. v. Wilts

and Berks Canal Co., 233, 234,

236, 237, 250, 268. 263, 554
Syers v. Metropolitan Board of

Works. 110. lis
Sykes v. Howarth, 332, 338
Symington v. Caladonian Rly. Co.,

224, 225
Symonds v. Hallett, 632
Synnot v. Simpson, 624

Taddt v. Steriotts, 482

Tall Vale Rly. v. Amalgamated Soc.

of Railway Servants, 386,

606

V. GordoM-Cumminc, 278, 280,

283

— — V. P»i typridd U. D. V.. 298,

301. 554, 555
Talbot V. Scott, 101, 102
TaUia r. TaUis, 462. 466
Tamworth (Lord) v. Lord Ferren.

Ta^iK «. Jmies, IW

Tate V. Fullbrook, 406
Tatham v. Palace Restaurants Co.,
574

Taunton v. Royal Inanrance Co..
509, 576

Tawney v. Lynn and Ely Rly.,

121 f ■/ '

Taws i>. Knowles, 290
Taylor, I{e, 120

f. Clenison, 131

— V. Davis, 498, 531

V. Friem Bamet Local Board,

175

1'. Hughes, 557

V. Mostyn, 146, 443

V. Pillow, 399

f. Roe, 689

I'. St. Helen's (Corporation of),

242, 243, 251, 2.')8. 437
Taylor Plinston & Co. v. Plinston.

688. «8»
Teacher v. Levy, 359
Teape v. Douse, 484, 486, 486
Tebb t?. Cave, 198, 474
Telegrapli Despatch, &c.. Co. r.

Maclean. 433
Telford v. Metropolitan Brard of

Works. 471. 476
Temple Bar. The. 667
Temple Pier Co. v. Metropolitan

Board of Works. 144
Tenby Corporation v. Jfaami, 106
Teofani, He, 362
Teresa. The. 610

Teuliere r. St. Maiy Abbots Veatty,
140 '
Thames Conservancy r. London
Port, &c., 267

V. Smeed, 230, 267

Thellusson v. Valentia, 600, 604
Thioknesae ». Laneaater Canal Co..

122 •
Thiedemann v. Ckddamidt. 6S9
nirauM «. Birain^am Canal Co..
266

V. Harford. 697

V. Hunt, 338

V. Oakley. 95

V. Owen, 277

Tkomaa, 808, 246

V. United Batteries Co., 626

V. WiUiama, 8, 688

Thompson v. Hammersmith Corp..
141

f. Hickman, 129, 305

V. Hughes, 343, 347, 348

r. Moore, 351

V. Stanhope. 408

V. Tottenham and FMMt Gate

Bly. Co., 122, 126

d a

Ui

XlBIiC OF cint.

Ihompson v. Univenity of London.

695, 096

• ». Waterlow, 275

Thomson, Be, 409

Thom t>. Nine Reefs Co., 64S

Thome V. Sandow. 371

~ ». T»w Bly. Doek Co.,

Thorneloe v. Hill, 388

V. Skoines, 843

Thorneycroft v. Crockett, 78
'riiornhill v. Week*, 18, 64S
Thornton t>. Little. 278, 281
Thorpe v. Bmmfltt, 154, 155, 275,

Three Towns Banking Co. v. Mad-

dtver, 360, 382
Thurao New Gas Co., Be, 620
Thurston v. Charles, 408
Thynne v. Shove, 373
Ticehurst Water Co. v. Gas, Sec ,

Supply Co., 66«, 689
Tickle V. Brown, 285
Tiessen v. Henderson, 677, 6;8
Tilbury v. Silva, 230
Tillett V. Nixen, 644
TiUuig Diek, Ken & Co., 158. 160,

188

Tilt Cove Copper Co., Be, 545
Timson v. Wusou, 667
Tinckley v. TNylesbury Dairr Co.,
204 J . ,

Tink V. Rundle, 120, 641

Tinkler v. Wandsworth X)istrict

Board, 688
Tipping V. Clarke, 503

V. Eokersley, 18, 260, 430,

474. 483. «45
V. St. H^n's Smelting Co.,

35, 19». M9. »1, S08
Titohnuush «. RoTston Water Co.,

288

Titus Astle, Ltd. v. Mansfield, 426
Tiverton and North Devon iiy. v.

Loosemore, IM, IJM 125,

120, 130

Tivoli (Manchester) v. Colley, 456
Todd Birlestone Co. v. North Eastern

Ely. Co., 41, 234
Tod-Heatley v. Benham, 446, 446

Tompkmson «•. South Eastern Rlv..

.'559, 563

Toms V. Merchant Service, iic, 368
Tone V. Preston, 212, 214
Toni Tyres Co. v. Palmer Tyre Co.,
332

Tonnins v. Prout, 627
Tooker e. Anneeley, VI
Teppin ». Teton, js», 9U
Torriano v. Youf, M

Tottenham D. C. v. Rowley, 299,
TottenhuiD.C. v. Williamson, 110,
ToW V. Eastna Coaatiea Bly. Co.,

Towers v. Afriean Tag Co., 559—

661

Townsend v. Haworth, 331, 338. 340
- — V. Jarman, 373, 466, 634. 5S5
Trjoey-Elliott v. Ead Mmi^. no.
873

Tracy «. Tracy, 71
Trade Auxiliary «. Middlesboro'.
403

V. Vickers, 578

Trafford v. Rex, 267

V. St. Faith*! Banl Cmmeil.

299. 301 «»»mai.

Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni, 815
Trautner v. Patmore, 343
Travers v. Lord Stafford, 678
Treacher v. Treacher, 446
Treadwell v. London and South

Western RIy., 126
Trego V. Hunt, 372, 461, 688. 683.

535

Treloar v. Bigge, 449
Trevor v. Whitworth, 664
Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Ambard

210, 212, 217
Tripp V. Frank, 312
Trollope v. London BnildbicFedem-

tion, 326
Trotter v. Maclean, 146, 140
Trower v. Chadwick, 215
Truefltt V. Edney, 358
Truman v. LoiUtai. Bii|^mi, *e..

Rly., 311
Truman & Co. v. Redgrave, 641
Truro Corp. «. Rowe. 274
Trusoott V. Meraluuat Ta«lm' Co..

189. 190, 194 ^ . •

Tubbs V. Esser, 22, 47, 4S5» 4S«,

444, 489, 496 ^
Tuck, Be, 686

V. Silver, 30

Tucker e. Linger, 69, 62, 63
-— 9, New BrunswiekTndngCS*.,
30, 661

V. Newman, 209

Tulk V. Moxhay, 483, 484, 486, 493

Tullitt V. TuUitt, 73

Tun bridge Wells (Mayor) v. Burd.

141, 142, 297, 304
Turkington v. Kearnan, 78
Turnbull v. West Ridiue AtUsil*

Club, 558
Turner v. Biamire, 114

TABliB Of OMBS.

Twnor r. KvsnR. 436. 455, 462

V. Goldsmith, 481

V. London and Somtli W««tom

RIy., 499

V. Major, 531

V. Mirfield, 152

V. Ringwood Highway Qoard,

307

«. Sswdon, 481

V. Spooner, 18S

r. Turner, 658

r. Walsh, 299, 301. 541, 646

r. Wright, 72, 73, 74, 83

1 iirton t'. Turton, 42, 358, 364, 366.
461

Tuggaud V. Tussaiid, 367, 581
Tweedale v. Ashworth, 342
Twort V. Twort, 72, 06
Twyoroas r. Dreyftu, 8
Tjmoioatii Cotf. ». Att.-Gen., 587,

Tjrrell t. Painton, 637

Ulmann f. Cowes Harbour Comrs.,
14

V. Lenba, 360, 371

Umfreville v. Johnson, 200
Underhay t>. Read, 544
Underwood v. Barker, 450
Uneeda Trade Mark, Be, 362
Ungar v. Sur ,-, 517
Union Lighterage Co. t'. London

Graving Dock Co., 213, 214, 287

289. 290

United Horseshoe Co. v. Stewart,
674

Uirited Land Co. v. Great Eastern
„ Bly.. IM. 278, 282.
United Merthyr Collieries Co.. He,
146

United Mining Co. v. Becher, 686
United Shoe Machinery Co. f

Brunet. 451, 459, 482
United States v. Priolean, 10
United Telephone Co. Dale. 338
363, 687

«. EqiiitebleTeleiihoBeCo.,347

«. Nelaon, 338

V. Sharpies. 335, 336, 337, S43

V. Tasker, 348

Unwin v. Hanson, 307

Heath. 342

Upmann f. Elkan. 364, 377, 383
385, 387. 388. 665

V. Forester, 38, 40, 329, 354.

383, 387, 064
UptBB «. H«»»«w»on, 448, 470
Un—tea «. WkitelBit. 4M

I Vaciieu v. London Society of Com-
positors, 324, 326, 327
Valentine v. Valentine. 365. 366
Vance v. East Lancashire Rly., 566,
687

Van der Lccuw. Be, 363

Vane v. Lord Barnard, 83. 84, 85

V. ( ockermonth and DariioK-

ton Rlv.. U6
Van Gelder t-. Sowerby. 330, 546
Van Oppen & Co. v. L. Van Oppen,

369, 381
Vansandau. Ex parte, 694
— — «'. Rose, 663, 664
Vansittart v. Vansittart. 476
Vardopnio r. Vardopulo, 12. 614.

61«. 617. 61!)
Vaughan t-. Taff Vale Rly. Co., 158
\ avasseur v. Krupp. 8, 832
Vavasour's Case. 57
Vmmt ». Genwal InTMtmrat Trait,

Vernon v. Baehanan, 387

«. FMlam, 372

— — James's Vestry, 206, 296,

Victoria Steamboat Co., Re, 545

Vincent r. Spiccr, 83. 90

Viner v. Vaughan. 57. 68. 72

Ving V. Robertson, 575, 576

Vipan f. Mortlock, 678

Von fierkel v. Booth, 341, 342

Von Eckhardstein r. Von Eckhard-

stein. 617
Von Hevden v. Nenatadt, 337
Von Joel V. Uonuey. 44, 47, 178,

W.. Pc. f,36

Wagstaff V. Edison Bell Co., 206
Wake V. Dyer, 319
V. Hall, 67

Wakefield f. Duke of Buceleneh, 34S

«'• Hendron. 60

Waldroii. A'e. 66
Walford r. VValford. 32
Walker r. Brewster. 204

r. Clarke, 517

r. Falkirk Iron Co,. 424

V. Jones. 2

V. Mottram, 372, 53u

V. Stewart. $58
vv a V. London Assets Corp., 28
Wallace v. Att.-C.m., 453
— V. Camphell. (iI8
Wallasey Lo< al Hoiutl v.

iV: 111. ;$(»{»
WailiB ( . Hands. \tni
~ r. Smith. 466. 468
V. Wallis, 626

liv

TABLE OF CASES.

Wallwyiiii r. ('(iuHh. r>2:i
Walsby r. Aiih y, 321
Walah V. Lonsdale. 30

V. TieTuioii, 487

Walter v. Ashton. 536

V. Selfe, 176, 200

• V. Steinkepff, 39,

40. 354.

418, 665
AViiltois r. I'foil, 215
Walton V. .lohngon, 63, 646
Wwidsworth Board of Works i.

London and .South Wes-
tern Rly.. 114 lr)8

United Telephone Co., 141,

142

Wapshare Tube Co. r. Hyde Rubber

Co., 34.-.

Warhurtoii r. London and Black-

wall Rly., 158
Ward r. Countess of Dudley, 67

V. Society of Attorneys, S85

«. Ward, 246, 291

Ward Lock v. Long, 398
— — V. Operative Printers, 324
Ware v. Grand Junction Canal Co.,
12, 471

— i: Regent's Canal Co., 24, 31,
114, 115. 130, 132, 151, 250. Hon

Waring v. Manchester, Shelheld,
and Lincolnshire Rly., 429

W^ng and Gillow v. Thompson,

Warlters ». Green, 325
Wame v. Routledge, 399, 476
— — V. Seebohni, 415, 417, 418
Warner »•. Jacob, 30, 538, 539, 641,

661

• f. M'Bryde, 1S5

V. Murdoch, 3

Warren t>. Lambeth Waterworks.
575

Warsop V. Warsop, 388
Warwick v. Queen's College, 60
Warwick Tyre Co. v. Now Motor

( o., .337. 375
W»r\vick and Birniinghani Canal

Co. V. Buriiani, 34
Washburn Manufacturing Co. i

Cunard Co., 331
Water v. York, 634
Waterford Bridge Co. v. Waterford

Corporation, 313
Watcrhouse v. Waterhouae (1893

P.), 626. 629, 643
V. Waterhouse (1906, 94L.T.).

43, 104, 106 '
Waterlow tv Bacon. 28
Waters v. Taylor, 535
Wathcrcii v. IIowulls, 56
Watney «. Trkt, 6S8

Watson V. Daily Record, «, 609.
511,644

V. Gray, 216

■ — — V. Hunter. 93

V. Hythc Corp., 110, 586

■ — — V. Lyon, 545

V. Troughton, 246

Watts, Ex parte, 622

r. Kelson, 258, 259, 275, 278

r. Smith, 463
r. Watts, 628
Wauton f. Coppard. 440
Wearraouth Crown Co., Me, 10
Weatherby International Horse

Agency. 33. 392, 403, 404, 406,

414—416, 418, 419
Webb V. Baldwin, 298. 299

V. Bird. 198

— — V. Earl, 565

V. Manchester and Leeds Rly.,

116, 134

V. Plumnier, 78

— - r. Shropsliire Rly. Co., 565
Webster r. Bosan(|uot. 466 — 468

V. South Eastern Rlv.. 115

Weddenham v. Atholl (Diikc), 272
Wedderburu v. Wedderburn, 613,

616

Wedges, He, tiTit

Wedmore v. ^Mavor. &c.. of Bristol.
206

Wedneshurv ( orp. r. Lodge Hole*
Colliery. HI, 26!t. 308. 309

Weeks v. lleward, 242, 244

Weeton v. Woodcock. 68. 148

Weingarten v. Bayer, 329, 367, 360,
382, 384—386, 664

Weir V. Fermanagh D. C, 586, 694

Weir Hospital. Re, 598

Welch r. Knott. 382

Welcome's Trade Mark, He, 372

Weld Bhmdell r. Wolseley. M, 87

Weld V. Hornby, 203

— — V. fouth VVestern Rly., 131

Weldon v. De Bathe, 632

V. Dicks. 413

Wellesley v. Lord Momington, 688,
601

I'. Wellesley, 92

Wells. He. 520

r. Atteiiborough, 4!(4

r. London, Tilbury, Ac, Rlv,.

203 - J .

Welsbach Incandescent Co. »i. Day-
light Co., 362

r. General Incandescent Co.,

347

— V. New Iiu iii>de«!ent Co., 362
VVetatead v. Hadley. 455. 46S, 535
Welton V. Saflery, 565

TABUI OF CAnS.

WeahMa Om Co. «. cauunpton Qtm
Co., 339

Wenloek (Ladj) v. Dm Rivw Co.,
547, 548, 561, 568, 584

Wemer Motors Co. v. Gamage, 340,

350, 3.'54, 424, 427
West I. Bristol Tramways Co., 161,

162, 165. 255
— — V. Gwynne, 39, 440

V. White, 667

West Cumberland Iron Co., Be, 620
West Cumberland Iron, &o., Co., v.

Kenyon, 254
West End Hotels Co. v. Bayer, 578,

579

Western v. M Dermott, 24, 435, 436,
485, 494

Western Waggon Co. v. West, 431
West Ham Charity Bd. v. East

London Waterworks, 48, 50, 51,

63, 65

Weot Leifth Ct^iery Co. v. Tunni-

oliffe, 209, 210
Westminster Association «. Upward,

660

Westminster Brymbo Coal, Su>., Co.
V. Clayton. 108, 254

Westminster Corporation v. London
and North Western Rly. Co., I(t5,
107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 1.S5, 142,
158, 160, 161, 162, 168, 588

Westmoreland v. New Skailstoa
Co., 169

Westoll (The James), 13, 608

Weston V. Arnold, 216. 677

— — 1'. Metropolitan Asylum Dis-
tript, 470

Whaley, Re, 69

V. Laing, 250

Whalley ». Lancashire and York-
shire Rly., 2SS, 257

Whatman «. CMbsen, 485

Wheatcroft, Re 409

Wheatley v. V. estmtnster Brymbo
Coal Co., 478

Wheaton t>. Maple, 191

W'heeldon v. Burrows, 184, 185,
188, 287. 289

Wheeler and Wilson Manufac-
turing Co. V. Shakspear, 360

Wheelw «. Le Marohant, 505

Wheelwright «. Walker. 522

Whiston e. De»n add Chapter of
Rochester, 595, 597

White V. Arthur, 466

V. Carmarthen, &o., Bly., 560,

662

i). Cohfii, 156

— — V. Grand Hot*l, Eastbeame,
278, 280, ^8^

White V. Hall, 628

V. Jameson, 153

». MtJann, 81

«. Mellin. 611

V. Pollard. 435

v. SoBthend Hotel Co., 445,

459 465

V. White', 231, 233, 240, 242,

244

White, Tomkins & Co. e. Wibou,

455

Wbitechurch v. Holdworthy, 54
White's Charities. B», 230, 305
Whitehead, Be. 641

r. Bennett, 67, 433

V. Wellington, 390, 391

Whitehouse v. Hugh, 296, 475
Whitoley, Be, 525
Whitfield V. Bewit. 58, 71, 72. 93
WTiitfleld's Bedsteads, Be, 362
Whitham v. Westminatn Brrmbo

Coal Co., 146
WhiUey v. ChaUis, 542
Whitmores (Edenbridge) Co. «.

Stanford, 229, 231. ^4, 247. 248,

249, 255
\ATiittaker v. Howe, 453, 498
Whittingham v. Wooler, 404
Whitwham i'. Moss, 34, 498
Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hard-

man, 432, 476, 480, 481, 482
MHiitworth «. Gaugain, 656

t». Rhodes, 30, 539, 661

Wickenden v, Webater. 444
Wickham, Be, 680
Wicks V. Hunt, 22, 31, 173. 257
Wigglesworth r. Dallison, 63
VVigram t,. Fryer, 123, 145
WilcoT V. Steel. 34, 318, 310, 681
Wild I'. Woolwich Borough council,

121, 122. 123. 126, 140
Wilde V. WUde, 41
Wilding V. SaadMaon, 679
Wiles V. Oresham, 625
Wilkes V. Spooner, 486
Wjilkiiis f. Wood, 63
Wilkinson r. Cummins, 861

V. Hull Rly. and Doek Co., 117

J'. Rogers. 430

Wille r. St. John, 486, 490
Willes V. Levett. 538
Williams r. Ba<;nall, 220

V. Bingley, 531

V. BouviUe, 650

V. Oavies, 652

V. Day, 85

V. Duke of Bolton. 71, 02

V. Gabriel, 154

Jmm, M, 178, 181, 38^.

SM

Ivi

TABLE or CAKRR.

VVilliaiiiM f. .ItTRf.v, 36

V. MHrnaina'ra, 8fi

• V. Morlaiid, 236, 256

V. Prinee of Wales Aasnnuiee

Co.. SOS

V. Quchrada Bly., 806

V. Rajtcett, 147

r. Roberts, 20

— ~ r. Salmon, 560

r. Weston -super- Marc, 7
I'. \\ illijiin»i. 73, 466, 607
Willi* r. Childe. 526
Willmott r. Barber, 21. 22, 36. 37

V. London Road Car Co., 449

Wills r. Adams, 436, 448
Willsou V. Love, 466, 467, 468, 470
Wilson V. Chureli. 32

t'. Churrh Kngineering Co., 517

r. C. W Rlv.. .566. 660

r. Hart. 484. 485, 486

c. Ronton, 323

V. Si'ottisli 'rv|«)){rapliical

Assoc., 327, 606

t>. Townend, 148, 168, 163

V. WaddeU, 254

V. Wilson. 627

Wimbledon and Pntney Cornmis-
sionerg r. Dixon, 282, 284
2«(i, 287

Winibli'don Loral Hoard c. Croydon

Sanitary .Antlioritv, 677
Winch t'. Birkenhead, Lancashire,

and Cheshire Kly., 136,

669, 672

t>. Conservators ofThanies. 307

Winefaester (Bishop of) v. Knicht
60

Windhill Local Board v. Vint, 638
Wing V. I'ottonhani, &c.. Rlv. Co
138

Winstanley v. Lee. Ifl4
Winter v. Baker, 2<»4
Winterbottom v. Ijonl Uerbv, 111

150.301.309
\Vintlc V. Bristol and South Wales

Rl.v . 11.5. I.Tt
Wither r. Dean and ( iiapterof Win-
chester, 80. 81, 82
Withington L. C. tr. Manclwster

Corp., 202
Wittman v. Oppenheim, 40, 364,

419, 424, 664
Woking U. D. C. (Basiamtoke

Canal) Act, 1911. Be, 6SS
Wolfe V. Matthews. 606
\Volnierhausen v. O'Connor, 464.
458

Wolverhaniptoii ami Walsall Rly.
i>. Lundou and North V\esteru
Bly., 476

Wolverl im;>'..n Con), v. Emniofla.

431, 432. i»r
Wombwell c. Hi,'la«yse. 87
Wood t'. Cha.in- ( li.s, Biy , 114

V. ConnoUy & Co., 6. 11. 610,

611. 615

V. Cooper, 446. 497

V. Downsa, 687

». Epsoin and Leatberhead

Rl.T., lie, 120, 13S

V. Ilamblct, 668

t>. Lillies, 7, 631

— V. North Staffofdsiiire BJv.,
133

r. RowclilTe, 627

V. Saiuidero. 41, 184, 208, 246,

268, 278, 283

V. Sutcliffe, 19, 34, 35, 36, 239.

280

V. Veal, 297

r. Wood, 632

I'. Waud, 232, 236, 238, 839.

247, 248, 250, 630
^Vood bridge ». BeUamy, 23, 433.
462, 463

Waodeoek v. Oxford, Ste., Riy., 658
Woodhottse v. Newry Navigation
Co., 44, 46
- i: Walker, 66
Woodman v. BoUnsoo. 88
Woodruff V. Breeon aad Mertfcrr

Rly.. 135 '
Woodward c. Battcrsea Consaratiaii.
432, 433, 499

»'. Gyles, 468

Woodyer v. Hadden, 298, 302
Woolf t'. Woolf. 388
Woolley t'. Broad. 426
Woolston »•. Ross. 542. 642
Woolwich Corp4K«tiMi «. GibaoB.

317, 320 •
Worcester's Case (Dcmi and CluMter
of), 80

Worcester College, Oxford v. Oxford

Navigation Co., 43, 46. 66, 433
vV orsley r. Stewart, 68

— p. 8wan, 430
Worthington v. Abbott. 636

V. Uinison, 2?5, 276

Wragg V. Denham, 75
Wright V. Atkyng, 644

». Berry, 438. 439

V. Howard, SM. 888. 236, 848.

244

V. Redgrave. 607

V. Stavery. 87

i: Tallis, 413

,,. Wallawey Local Beard, 636

— - 1.. WiUiams, 841, 842. 844
Wrightson p. T»fln, 01|

TABI.B or CASn.

Wylam «. CUrke, 41

Wyndluun «. Wat, 04

Wynne v. Lord Newboroogb, 645

Yapp v. WiUiuns. CSS

Yarmouth Corporation «. Groom,

317

Yates V. Cyclists Tearing dab, 575
V. Jack, 197

YMtnum*. Homb«rg«r,358,383.682
Yellowly v. Gower, 66

V. Morley, 104

Yetts r. Norfolk Rly., 574

York and North Midland Uly. r.

Hudson, 563
Yorkshire County Council v. Holm-

flrth Sanitary Authority, 265
Yorkshire Miners Association r.

Howdnn, 386 («), 606
Yorkshire Rivers Board t>. Preston,
265

V. Ravenscroft D. C. 266

t'. Robinson, 266

ti. Tadoaster E. C, 229, 271

Yost Typewriter Co. v. Typewriter
Ezdumge Co., 361, 38S

Young V. Ashley Gnrdena Pro-
prietors, 449
Yoang V. Brassey, 643, 649, 653

— V. Brownlee, 675

tJ. Chalkley, 466

V. Cuthbertson, 396

f. Macrae, 358

t'. Naval and Military Society,

563, 564

V. Peck, 323

o. Spencer, 61

V. Star Onmibos Co., 291, 293

Young Si Co. V. Bankier Distillwy

Co., 233, 239, 254, 260
Young Manufacturing Co., Re, 658
Yovatt V. Winyard, 503, 507
YHtalyfera Iron Co. v. Neath and

Brecon Rly., 122, 129, 130

" Z " EucTBic Lamp Co. «, Oeram
Lamp Works, 515

Zenith Motor Co. v. Collier & Co.
343

Zick V. London United Tramways,
121 '

ADDENDA ET COBRIGENDA.

Pa);c S ( (). .liW ■ Kfl Jieitiihlic of Iloliritt lixjilornUoii Syndicatt, (1914)

1 Ch. I3it.'

Page 9 (u). Add • And hcp Dover I'irture I'aUireCo. v. Dover < orporalion,
(1913) 11 L (1. K. p. 077. /.(■« Hamilton, L.J."

Pago 10 (j-). Add -And see Bobinson v. Fenner, (1913) 3 K. U. 835;
(1W4) 83 L. J. K. B. 81."

P«g6 10 (y). Add "Oarvin. Gib$on db Co. v. Gihion, (1013) 3 K. B.
pp. 887. 388 : 82 L. J. K. B. 1315. 1318."

P«ge 18 (n). Add " Dauer»-8mith v. Uadiley, (1913) 108 L. T. 897 ; 57

.1. 6.5.'> ; liedford v. Corporation, (1913) 77 J. P. 430."

Page 32 (e). .l/«*r " Sta««»j«r v. Spalding" (p. 33), adtf ".ii>.-GM». V.
fori.*. (1913) 2 Ch. p. 454 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 667."

.-i'^y** "Btdford T. <forfMmitjM. (1913) 77 J. P. 430.

434.

, ^•ft'^ifK ^''^ " AU-Om. v. Pom*, (1913) 8 Ch. 444; SS

Id. J. Ch. 502 (bnaeh of bye-laws)."

Pago 35 iq). Add " PhiUimore v. Watford Sural CouneO, (1913) S CJh.
p. 443 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 619." \ i

Page 35 (t). After "Jones v. Llanrwet Vrbom CMUteU" (p. 3S). add
'■ /'/kiHimor. v. Watftrd Bmrtd CmmeO. (1913) 3CIi. 443 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 619."

Page 41 (»)■. I ^ Wforua (1913) 3 Ch. 444 ;

Page 43 (I). ) I'- »«2-

Page 45 («). ^/tor " ^Smior v. Prtic»on, ' add " See ^H.-Gen. v. Parish,
(1913), 2 Ch. 444 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 502, where a mandatory injunction was
granted for the removal of » houM erected (before iMoe of the writ) in
advance of the prescribed building line."

Page 45 (M). Add " Att.-Oen. v. Parish, (1913) 2 Ch 444 ; 82 L. J. Ch.
562."

Page 46 (6). i Worcester College v. Oxford Canal yaviqation is also reported
Page 46 (p). ] 105 L. T. 501.

Page 46 (e). .4iid " i^ee Dover Picture Palace Co. v. Dover Corporation,
(1913)11L. li. R. 971."

Page 70 (y). In re Morrison, Jones and Taylor, affirmed in C. A., and
now reported (1914) 1 Ch. fiO ; 30 T. L. B. 69.

Page 74 (d). In re Hamllmr^'e Settled EeUttee is also reported 82 L. J. Ch.
430.

Page 1 04 ( I ). King v. Broum, JhtrrmU A Co. k abo reported 82 L. J. Ch.
548 ; 109 L. T. 69.

Page 105 (x). ''Lewis v. Meredith." for " 108 L. T. 349," read "108
L. T. 549 ; also reported 82 L. J. Ch. 255."

Hcpe V. Osborne is a.'so reported 82 L. .T. Ch. 457 : 109 L. T. 41.

After ''King v. Jliown." add "See Ilampstead Oarden Suburb Trust v.
Deeiow, (1013) 77 J. P. 318, where an injunction waa granted to leatniia
the holding of meetings on private roads."

Page 106 id). After " Cope v. Sharpe " add " Cf. KfthM T. Chtetum,
(1013) 30T. L. R. 15." r r ,

Page 107 (9). ) Knuoek db Co. v. S^wkmde is ako lenorted 81 L. J. Ok

Page 109 (ff).) 340.

ADOmPA IT COMIOIMDA.

w^\^78"4«i' fifr lu*'^ ^'**'"" ^"*'"'"' "'•

I'liK.- lit (m). For •' (1913) S8 T. L. R. 861." read " (I91S) 38 T. L. R.

J'ajf.- lU7(r) (irrotienlml l{„iU,ny(o.M. Mutlnnd Rnil^nu Co.. atF.mti
m H. J., oil other Krouiid*. ( 1013) 30 T. L. K. 33 : 33 W. N. 294
L. J*Si* 562 *• reported (1B13) 2 Ch. 444 ; 88

Page i48 (f). Add '• MiddltUm v. U»mpkrie», (llH.t) 47 Ir. L T 160
where an injanrtion wm grmted to rentrsin the defendant Irom allowinii
tlip rootn of hiH trees to daniaxe the plaintiff"* wall "

I'a^e 152 («). | Add " White v. London aeneral (hmniiut Co., (1914) W. N

Faxe 153 (.'). | 78 ; 4B L. J. N. C. 114. '

L. jTh^Mo'"' "'^ ^"'^^ » «». 492; 88

W*'x*78''*4H L .i''x ( ''114 •

_^i'ap. 179 if).' Add ' ikmi r. Marraih, (1913) 8 Ch. 481 ; 88 L. J. Ch.

h '.'"n/^lo''' *■ "ported (1913) 8 Ch. 481 ; 88

Pajce 170 (A). .Idfi ' And «ec Ihwig v. MnrmbU. iiipra, where the heiidit
of a ImildniK on the servient tenement had been raised in one part, the
lowered in another part, no that the total amount of light cominit to but
dommant tenement was not diminixhed. ' b u.

(19*1^ X 6i("%«^J^"i"v r^f ?/r ^"Hl" Ltd .

by otLr pe^on,)." " ^* "* (-"J"^* «» P^«»

Page 203 «). Add " Bodford r. Lttdo Corporation. (1913) 77 J. P 430 "
430 Xir) " " ^ L>o3rcorpo;^ion,\ 1913) 77 JUP.

Pape 204 (rf) Add " De KtyurS Royal Hotel v. Spietr Bro,., (1«14) 30
1 . L. K. 2.1, (pile driving between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.)."

Page 20.5, 7th line. .Idrf • But an injunetion was granted to restrain pUe
dnving between the hours of 10 p.m. and « a.m.. as being unreasonable
{De hty»er'» Roi,„l Hotel v. Spirer Hron.. (1014) 30 T L K 257) "

Page 206. 1.5th line. After - (»)." add " allowing the root, of treea to
spread under an adjouing owner's land and injure his wall (Middklo* r
Humpkneg. (1913) 47 Ir. L. T. 160)." x^nmmn t.

« ^1" vT-!™ 'n' Lvong v. GuUiver, affirmed in C. A., 30 T. L. R. 75 ; 58
^. 0/ (Plidlimore, L..T., di»».).

Page 254 (/). Add " ( hnring Crogg and Wegt End Suppfy Co. v. London
%rfr««/.r /W,r r„.. (1013) 3 ft. B. 442 ; (1914) 83 L. ^.T. B. 116 (eSe^

of water through burHtmg of mains)."

PaKe28(J(n) ' " ^- (^""^ Hotel, EagOoHme. s^mrmeA in H. (10131
Paie282 (j);) M S. J. 117 ; W. N. 306. '

Page 293 ig). Add " WkiU v. londoit Oeneriii Omnibug ( o.. ( 1914) W N
78 : 49 I,. .1. \. (". 114." «'■«;".

Page 204 (I). For " (1912) " read '• (1911)."

Page 297 (/). For • 82 L. .1. Ch. 673." read " 82 L. .1. Ch. 73."

Pago 200 (r). ^ Tottenham I rban Counril v. Kovley. atlirmed in H L

Pagc30fi(9). gub nom. Rowley v. Tottenham I rban Couneil (I913I

Page 307 (n). ' 30 T. I.. R. 168 ; \V. \. 367. '

Page 30!) /,yons d" To. v. Cuiiiuii s,,,uUralr. itlTirincd in C A ( t»IMl
30 T. L. R. 75; 58 .S. J. 07 (Phillimore. L.J., digi,.). ' ' '

Page 309 (e). "4tt.-Gtn, v. Hharpneig Xew Doejcg Co.," delete " (1913) j

iDsnrsi IT coRRioiNVA. txi

K. B. 440, 441 : 82 L. J. K. H. p. 1»8." imtl lubitUuU " (inU) 49 L. J. X. C.
8S ; 136 L. T. .lo. 376."

Page 341 (k). A'«w Invtrttd Ineamtt$tent Oai Lamp ('•. v. Uiniktt.
»»nud iB C. A., (IMS) 10 B. P. C. «M.

Page 343 U). Add "Otram Lamp W«rkt Co. v. Sehh- 4t €•„ (l»13)
30 R. P. C. 3fl!»."

Page 357 (r). For • 29 T. L. R. 117 " read " 29 L T. T. 163."

Page 357 (d). Feitlman v. Ilombtrger w aliio reported 2» T. L. R. 26.

Pajre 359 «)• />«<«<« " R," and tn»ert before " W. »l- (I. />« frot,"
" KegiHrin- of Trade Markn." ThwfaHe is now reported (1914) 83 L. J.
Ch.I.

Page 360 («) J<W • And «■«• /'in* v. Sharwootl. (1913) 109 L. T. 394."
PaC»3M (p). /f« rnn (iff Ammm) U aUo reported 81 I,. .]. Ch. 1(H».
P«g» 364 («). Hrintmend v. Urintmtad, alhrnHid in C. A., 29 T. L. R.
7M: ft? S. J. 716.

PaSa 170 i*!' i ^dd "And see Boviden Wire Co. v. Howden Hrake Co.,
P^e3l" Id). \ (1913) 30 R. P. f. 609."

Page 371 (i). Add " See Pink v. Sharwood, (1913) 109 L. T. 594."

Page 372, end of lant paragraph. Add " And the xanie principles apply
in the case of a itale by a trustee under a deed of miignment by a debtor
for the beneat of hin rreditors (Gr««» d 8—$ (ircfOMMtM) Mmnit,
(1914) W. N. 65 ; 40 L. J. N. (!. 99)."

Page »7ft («). THUtmmm Hmmh0ifKt 4» C«.. ftOriMd in C. A.. 107 L. T.
74S: SOT. L. R. 2».

Page 387 (o). Add " Brintmead v. Brimmmtd, (1913) 29 T. L. R.
p. 239."

Page 389 (d). ) /t/<#r " LithoHle Co. v. TnwU d- IniuUilori Co.," add
Pago 391 (/). i •• 532."

Page 391, 3rd line (3). See Corelli v. Ora^, (1913) 30 T. L. R.

Page 391 (a). /»»»<>r< before " A« to the law before the A«t," '
V. P(Uki Friri* PatKephone Co.. (1914) 1 K. B. 395."

Page 3M. Sad line. Intrt after "time tables (o),"
(BynM ▼. r»« StoMft e*., (1014) 30 T. L. B. 254 ; W. N. 37)."

Page 394 (m). ) Add " See BynM t. 7*« Statitt Co.. (1014) 30 T. L. R.

Page 396 («). j J54 ; W. if. 37."

Page 308 (9). AuftMM ▼. i>MU Frim Ptihtpkomt Co., •mxmoi in C. A.
itub nam. MonckUm v. PM4 JMnt PuOMpkont Co., (1*13) 30 T. U B. 1S9 ;

(1914) 1 K. B. 395.

Page 402 (9). Add " Hee Xfonckion v. f'oatf l''»4i«t PaOtpkMM C«b,
(1913) 30 T. L. R. 123 ; (1914) 1 K. B. 395."

Page 410 («J). ) J ft^ tM " -jj " KM "

Page 411 (Z).)^-''^

Pan 410 {ph ^di " See Bwrn$ y. the «MM Co., (1914) 30 T. L. B.
884 rW. N. 37."

Paga 417 («)• for " (1913) 29 T. L. R. 72," read " (1913) 29 T. L. R.
67S ; aiBraea in C. A., (1913) 30 T. L. R. 116."

Page 418(1.). ^lU " CoiwU* t. 6ray, (1913) 20 T. L. B. 57S } 30 B.
116.

P^e 426 (o) i " ^ °- ^'

Piige432(*) ■ ^dd"C»«»««IT.irM««*y.(1913)683.J.60; W.N.277. "
Pi«e433ie). " Sen^iuMrt .iUmm «eM JfiiiiHy Ce.. (1013> 58

8. J. 48."

Pag«4M(i). iSMm t. 8min*mrf, now ako xvparted (1914) 83 L. J. Ctu

Pa^6 136 (a). ^

r .g 438 (9). ; Catm ▼. JITanaKli Mpoitod 81 L. J. K. B. Ml.

Page 443 (z). )

p"' 'J^ ;"/"■ /'■'■<"• V. rov.itt iM u1mi> rf|H<rti><l N2 L. .1. ch 4;i..*

J:*. " ' ""'"'"'J'"" * • "'»'>'/" i" now M iMirti-.l (Jiti.n .jd T. i,. K.

.iemiS!l*™«^""*- ^Z**' u".* » im. ,., us,. ,1...

ittuc j w»i8tco»U Mid m»ckinto»htt., w*, keld to huv.- b.wi bro; . u i.v th.-

». J?1m!*" ''■'W'' it "K'W n!>"r'.Mi (l<»l;()

r.H s!) ''u ' ' '..ported (1914) ..i T. L. U. 837 ;

pomt in ... L.. (1914) VV. N. 73 . 49 J S ifa ' **" *^

L. £• »«nu«.d in C. A.. (1»13) IW

l/j' xT. fl/'"- ' """"^ " "^•'^ SO T. L. P. Ig4 J 49

29^'r^'/RM^i*;- -tW. r. Jone^ (1918)

PttKe 462 -nh line. Add - ti,, jlg,, » cov. iiant bv ari «mi>iBT<«

broken bTlu» «)licituiK<M>«t„,„ , h.-. .1 Iron, uilu-r .V, mi«^^^^^^^

bnwneMiL^ been mo ve.l (.»/,„,/,„/, „ u V , ^

T. L. It. 351)." ' •""'-«"" "■ "I mil, hut. \ .Ja*f. J) ; t

I'aKe 462 • • • • ilM.

V&KK 462 (r). f

PiKP 463 («). 4 " S«- Dojfmr-Swm v. l*aiMm, (1913) lAg J H97 •

1 aK« 483 (J-). /

Page 476 (d). , ,

Page 477 (A). ' .•"'*»«r en.6«>«." ,tdd ho,,mn. Urbu.

Page 482 (A).) (1913) .>8 s. J. 5„ ; W. \ '77

{mTa^^L^-R '^r' ' reversed . A

Patro 4M (y). .4M " Milt'^w v £fM*. (1914) 1 Ck. S4, 40 1 lu« L. T.

I'ngf 4>.f>(o). I A.'/.n/ .. Smmt^mrf » new (eportfl (1914) 88 L. J. Ck.

l'ttK« 4''+ (.). i 103

I'ttjft 4((/i 1 1913) 30 H. P. r. oA/ " 532."

Pmif 5i» . f ■■ t'«W«.M." " 272," rtod " f'o66«/(. ' ' 271."

P..;;.- .')2fi AiUi -Vf. ihtrhfU v. En»l Sii»»ex f (•„ {1913) ii. .^.
66."

Piu. ' s:!.*). loll x*. W<<"' "debtor ' (uM "or Iroiu liu tnMtM under b

iliHxi i. > foi uebeuetttot! creditor' '. om 5»M (J^WfkaM|>-

ioHi V. '/«m., (I 14) \ X. 65 : 4'.» L,. J. N. C. '

I'aRi ' ic). ' i// "«TM»» PoteM C#. T. l«v«w CMyaroliM,

1H|3) U. K .>7.

f.|... a(lf'ir! < L, K
.4*< /./ - V. .« kmOmaf Co., (1913) .S. • t!) (mmI,. of

''»jr* SttT '). -"on k iiliia reported (1' ^2 L. .1.

K t(. !• (17 .

m, ,11 {if t ■ M idUmii liiiUw n.i u. is oImo

n p- rted (»••!:' ,

I i»i e«l '>)„. i„ aw rt'i d (1U14) 1 Ch. 94.

i tt(e ei< o Hfxiifr u reporMu 414) 63 L. J. K. B. 139.

> me 63i> HtjMMit oj Balima rpiafatiM tfyiMiMia<« i> now

<rt«d (1»: . «^J> i9 : 30 T. L. B. 78.

48 64° QtMfo • r. W«kk ia now raported (1914) Oh. SIS ; 109

I After " Leney v. Ctillingham." add >ee ' v. //ny-

WHK, ilr V. b. 160 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 117 (decided in Oru- r Xli., r. 3,

Vwuitj > itrt .uiea. 1903, 1904)."

A TREATISE

OK TBM

LAW AND PRACTICE OF INJOTCTIOM

CHAPTEB I.
nrjUNonoirs » oubbal.

An injunction was under the old procedure a writ issuing Ch«p- 1-
by order and under seal of the Court of Chancery. A writ of Uudwtb* old
injunctio may be described as a judicial process whereby a
party was required to do a particalar tiling or to refrain from
doing a particular thing according to tiie exigency of the writ.
The process, however, was rather preventiTe than restorative,
though it was by no means ecmllned to tiie former object.
When commanding an act to be d<me, it issued after decree,
and was in the nature of an execution to enforce the same;
as, for instance, it might contain a direction to the party
defmdant to yield up or to quit the possession of the land or
other property which constituted the subjeet'maitla' of the
decree in favour of the other party (a).

Under the present proeedun no writ of injnnetioa is to Under madern
issue. An injunction is by judgment or order, and such
judgment or order has the effect whidi a writ of injuncticm
previously had (6).

Injunetioos are either inUrlociitory or perpetuei. Inter-
locutory injunctions are such as are to continue until the
hearing of the cause upun the merits, or generally until
further rader. Perpetiui imyumetioiu un sudi as fom part Perpetual

injunctiou.

(a) Gilb. For. Bon., 11, 194, 9 B. B. 148, S7A.
196 ; Stribk t. hawkt, 3 Atk. 375 (») (M. L. r. 1 1.
Hugtmiit t. Ba«2qr, IS Ye*. IM;

2

INJUNCTIONS IN OENEBAL.

Obap. I.

Interlocntoijr
iqjaactini.

1*

111

of the decree made at ttie hearing upon tiie merits (e). The
perpetual injoncticm is in effeet a decree, and conelodes a
right.

The interlocutory injunction is merely provisional in its
nature, and does not conclude a right. The effect and object
of the interlocutory injunction is merely to keep matters in
statu quo until the hearing or further order (d). In inter-
fering by interlocatory injunction, the Court does not in
general profess to anticipate the determination of the right,
but merely gives it as its opinion that there is a substantial
question to be tried, and that till the question is ripe for trial,
a case has been made out for the preservation of the property
in the meantime in sta lu quo. A man who comes to the Court
for an interlocutory injunction, is not required to make out a
case which will entitle him at all events to relief at the hear-
ing. It is enough if he can show that he has a fair question to
raise as to the existence of the right which he alleges, and can
satisfy the Court that the propwty should be preserred in
its present actual cimdition, until such questitm can be dis-
posed of (e).

(e) Oilb. Far. Bom. 194, IM.

{d) Bladt PoitU Syn^tt v.
Satttr* OMiemimtt Co., 79 L. T.
660 ; Leneff S Co.v. Cattingham and
Th<mi)tnn, (1908) 1 K. B. p. 84;
7" L. J. K. B. p. 67 ; Jontt v.
Pacwja Rubber Co., (1911) 1 K. B.
p. 457 ; 80 li. J. K. B. p. 156.

(f) aiatcott V. LaKff, 3 M. & C.
4S1, 4M ; Hilton v. Lord Or. nvi/le.
Or. ft Hi. 983, 299; 10 L. J. Oh.
398, 401; M B. B. 997; Chtat
Wt§lem Sattwofi Oo. Bhmittgham
and Oxford Junction Railway Co.,
2 Ph. 497, 603 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 246;

78 B. B. 909; Dght TViyfar. 3
De O. P. 4 J. 467 ; 30 L. J. Ch.

284 ; Walker v. Jonet, L. E. 1 P. C.

50, 61 ; 35 L. J. P. C. 36 : I'raton v.

LutJt, 27 C. D. 505, 606, per Cotton,

L.J. ; Challtnder v. Royle, 36 C D.

425, 436, 443 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 99S.

1002; Mogul Stmmtkip Co. y.
McQrtgvr, IS a B. D. 478; M
L. J. a B. 040; Jmm t. Ahmpi
RtMm Co., uifra. 8m, however,
M to granting interlocatory in-
junotimu in libel aotioni, po$t.

CHAPTER II.

TUK NATURE AND LIMITS OF TUB JURI8OICTI0N OF TBR
HIOH COUBT OF JCSTICB BT INJUNCTION.

Unokb the former procedure, the jurisdiction by injunction chap. ii.
to restrain the doing of wrongful acts was a jurisdiction which Jnriidietioa
could only be exercised by the Court of Chancery. The Courts 'rnfinelf to
of common law had by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, ch*""!?-
17 k 18 Vict. c. 125 (a), been empowered to grant injunctions
in particular cases; and by the 16 k 16 Vict. c. 8S, had been
empowered to grant injunctions in patent cases; but until the
Judicature Act, 1873, the remedy by injunction continued to
be, with these exceptions, a remedy peculiar to the Court of
Chancery. By that Act, 36 k 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 16, all the
jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was transferred to the
High Court of Justice (6); and by sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, it is
declared that:

" A ma'idamus or an injunction may be granted, or a Sect. 26,
receiver appointed, by an interlocutory order of the Court judi^™ a^,
in all cases in which it shall appear to the Court to be
just or convenient that such order should be made; and
any such order may be made either unconditionally or
upon such terms and conditions as the Court shall think
just; and if an injunction is asked, either before or at,
or after the hearing of any cause or matter, to prevent
uiy threatened or apprehended waste or trespass, such
injunction may be granted, if the Court shall think fit,
whether the person against whom such injunction is
sought is, or is not, in possession under any claim of
title or othenrise, or (if oot of posswsiim) does or does
not claim a right to do the act soo^t to be restrained

(a) Soctions 81, S3. ISmbs mo. (h) 8m Wtmur t. MwrdarA, 4 Q.
^m^nnpmM by tts Btetuts D. 7M; ML. jr.(^ itt.

1— a

4

JURISDICTION BY INJUNCTION.

^**' under any colour of title ; and whether the estates claimed

by both or either of the parties are legal or equitable."
ThttAtttf This enactment (c) does "not confer an arbitrary or an
8, of the Jwii- unregulated discretion on the Court and does not authorize
c»uueAct, Court to invent new modes of enforcing judgments in

•substitution for the ordinary modes "(<{). It does "not
mean that tho Court is to grant an injunction simply because
it thinks it convenient. It means that the Court should grant
an injunction for the protection of rights or tiie prerention of
injury according to legal principles " (e). This sub-section (/)
does not enable the Court to issue an injunction in a case in
which before the Act there was no legal right on the one side
or no legal liability on the other side, either at law or in
equity (g) It was not intended by the enactment "to give
the right to an injunction to parties who before had no legal
right whatever, but simply to give to the Court, when dealing
with legal rights which were under its jurisdiction indepen-
dently of this section, power, if it should think it just or
convenient, to superadd to what would have been previonsly
the remedy, a remedy by way of injunction, altering therefore
not iu any way the rights of parties, so as to give a right to
those who had no legal right before, but enabling the Court to
modify the principle on which it had previously proceeded in
granting injunctions, so th'^t where there is a legal right the
Court may, without being hampered by its old rules, grant an
injunetitm where it is just or convenient to do so for the
purpose of protecting or asserting the legal rights of the
parties. ... All that was done by this section was to give to
the High Court power to give a remedy whitk formerly would
not have been given in that i)articular case, but still only a
remedy in defence of or to enforce rights, which according to

(f) ae ft 37 Vict, c M, 8. 23, (/) 36 4 37 Vict. c. 66. s. 25,

sub-H. 8. 8ub-8. 8.

('/) Dohtrty r. AKman, 3 A. C. (g) I'er Brett, L.J., in North Lon-

p. "28 ; Harris v. Btaitckamp Brot.. lionXRailtvay Co. v. firmt Korthern

(1894) 1 U. B. p. 809; CJ L. J. Raihmy Co., 11 Q. B. D. p. 38; 62

Q. B. p. 4X4. L. J. y. B. p. 383 ; and eee Kitt*

(f) /Vr Jpssol, M.E., in ,is!a't v. Muoit, (1893) 1 Q. B. 263;

V. Cttrporation of Southampton, 16 64 L, X Gb. lU, W,
C. D. p. 148 ; M L. J. Cli. p. 83.

JtmiSDICTION BY INJUNCTION.

s

low were previously existing and capable of being enforced in cb»p. II.
some or one of tiie different divisions wliich are now united in
the High Court. . . . The sole intention of the section is
tliis: that where there is a legal right which was, indepen-
dently of the Act, capable of being enforced eitiier at law w in
equity, then, whatever may have been the previous practice,
the High Court may interfere by injunction in protection of
tl.it right" (fe).

As was said in a recent case, the enactment in question
" has not revolutioiiise'l the law, but it has enabled the Court
to grant injunctions an ; receivers in cases in which it used
not to do so previously. I will not say where it had no
jurisdiction to do so, that would be going too far, but where
in practice it never did so " («').

It was not the {M-actice of the old Court of Chancery to
interfere by injunction where there was a legal right in
question which was being put in course for trial at law.
Accordingly in Reg. v. Mayor of Dover (k), the Court of
Queen's Bench decided, two years after the issue of the writ
and a year after the mayor had left of&ce, that he had no right
to be mayor at all. But under the Judicature Act it seems that
where independently of that Act there is a right that can be
asserted either at law or in equity, the Court can grant an
injunction whether interlocutory or perpetual in protection of
the right {I).

Accordingly, in A$laU v. Mayor of S<mthampton (m), ThecAetof
although there was a remedy at law by quo warranto and S|^''ttrjJS^
before the Judicature Act an injunction would not have been J^Ja*^
granted, the Conrt restrained the corporaticm by injunction
from declaring the plaintiff's office void, on the ground that

{h) Pw OottoB, L.J., in Soiih L. J. Ch. 1S3.

/.(mdm JtotitMiy Co. y. Ormt (k) OUtd by JtmA, ILB.. in

yorthrrn HaHtnay Co., 11 Q. B. D. A$M r. Mayor ^ aouthtmpbm, 16

39, 40; S2 L. J. Q. H. 380; Holmet 0. D. p. 148 ; SO L. J. Ch. p. 83.

V. Afi7/a</f,(18W)Hl.B.p. WI; as (*) Ru-hardtnn v. Methlty Srhool

L. J. Q. B. 384. jBoor./,(1893)3Ch.510; 62L.J.Ch.

(«) Citmmini v. Perkin$, (1899) 943.

! ( 'h. p. 20 ; f)8 L. J. fT, p. .^9, (m) 16 0. D. 148 ; 60 L. J. Oh.

Lindley, M.B. See, however, KitU 3S.
Mooro, (ISM) 1 U. B. 263; «4

Judicature Aeti
have not
altered tbf
principles ou
whicli injuuc-
tioBn are
inulad.

I.

JUBI8DICTI0N BY INJUNCTION.

_ the injunction was required in order to do effectual justice.

So al.o in Stomuud v. Vextri, of St. Giles (n), and in Medley
V. Bates (u), where there was tefore the Judicature Act a
rtgHt to apply to a Court of common law for a prohibition,
JesMel, M.K., wi.en lie had the jmrties before him, instead of
sending them to get a prohibition, f inted un injunction
against tin person who was seeking to go before the wrong
tribunal.

Again, the Court will, since the Jn licatur.' Act, in a proper
case, restrain the publication of a Ubel (q) ; or the making of
slanderous stateaents calculated to injure another in his
business (,). Hut it is only in the clearesl cases of libel or
slander that the Court will interfere by injunction, md
especially by interlocutory injunction (s).

The Judicature Acts, however, have not altered the prin-
ciples on which the Court acts in granting injunctions where
principles have been established as just and convenient (t).
" The very first principle of injunction law is that primd
iacie you do not obtain injunctions to restrain actionable
wrongs for which damages are the proper remedy " (u). Nor
will an injunction be granted where the case is one, not of legal
injury, but of mere inconvenience (i). Moreover, an mjunc-

(n) i20 C. D. 190; ai L. J. Ch.
629. See Wood Oimm<lly .{• Co.,
(19U) 1 Ch. 731, 7-W; 80 L. J. Ch.
409, 413.

(o) 13 V. I). 498 ; 49 j^. j (.j,.
170. See also The 7VrMa, 7IL.T.
343 ; llVxx/ v. Citiiuolli/ <{• Co., supra.

(7) Thomas v. U illiams, 14 C. D.
8ii4, 867 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 606 ; Q«aHt

Hill, iic. Milling Co. y. BeaU, 20
C. D. 601; 61 L. J. Ch. 874;
Hayward y. If., u c\ I). 198;
Bonnard v. I'erri/man, (1891) 2
Ch. p. 283; 00 L. J. ch. 617 ;
CollartI V. Marshall, (1892) 1 Ch.
571 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 268;
Chap. XII.

(r) /.w/j/ V. Bean, 26 C. D. 306;
53 L. J. Ch. 112B; and aee po-t.
Chap. XII.

(«) /.iivriiool Household Stores y.
Smith, 37 C. I). 170; 57 L. J. Ch.
83 ; lloiituiril v. I'errymun, (1891)
2 Ch. 269 ; and see Monum v.
Tussanil's, Lt.l., (1894) 1 Q. B.
671 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 464; ZJoyd't
Hank; Ltd. r. Jloi/ai Brituh Bani,
Ltd., (1903) 19 T. L. B. 548;
rortlti V. Wall, (1906) 22 T. L. K.
532; and tln^*,,! v. /taili/ Iteror-I
{(!lat,,ow). (1907) 1 K. C. 859; 76
L. J. K. U. 463; lujd «Kt,

Chap. xir.

it) (laskin V. Ilalh, 13 Ch. D.
329, /ler Thesiger, L.J.

(«) Per Ijndley, L.J.. in Ltmdtm
and Btaekwall Bailwag Co. v. Orom,
31 C. D. p. 989.

(*) Da^ V. Broumrifig, 10 C. D.
894 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 173.

JURISDICTION BY DWUNCTION.

7

ti<m will not be granted in a trivial case (y), nor where it ia Cb»9.a.
not required, the plaintiS having the remedy in his own

hands (z).

It was not the function or practice of the Court of Chancery
to reatrain men from prosecuting frivolous, litigious or
desperate suits merely because they are so (a). Nor has t'
Court under the Judicature Acts jurisdiction to interfere ! .
injuncticm uptm a false assumptiim of aatiiority. The Court
has no general jurisdiction to restrain persons from acting
wiUiout authority, and au injunction cannot be granted to
restrain a person from taking proceedings out of Court in the
name of a person who has given no authority to use it (b).

In like manner the Court has no jurisdiction to restrain a
party from proceeding with an arbitration in a manner not
auth(niBed by the agreement to refer, although such arbitra-
tion may be futile and vexatious (c). But the Court will, in a
proper case, restrain a party from proceeding with an arbitra-
tion if an acticm is pending impeaehing tiie instmment which
contains the agreement to refer (d) .

The Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the public No^atugMtion
duties of any of the departm«its of Government (e), or with with puidb
the sovereign a^ of a fore^ govemm«»t (/), m to Miforee a'^lSJi^trf

{y) Llandudno rrlmn Council v. R. R 78.

Wood*, (1889) 2 Oh. 706 ; 68 L. J. (i) London and Blackwall Jiuil-

Oh. taSi Bokmu T. akiardt, {1906) van Co. v. Crott, 31 Ch. D. 3M,

2 Ch. <14, aU; 74 L. J. Ch. «19. 871 ; U L. J. C!h. 313, 314.

620 ; JfVeWm ▼. Cte, (1906) 22 («) Ifertk Lmu^ Aifiteuy Ob. t.

T. L. B. 411 ; Englith v. Mttro- Qmat Northern Bailwag Co., 11

politan Water Board, (1907) 1 K. B. Q. B. D. 30 ; 52 L. J. a B. 880 ;

688, 603 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 361, 371 ; and see H'oorf v. Laiie»,6l I.. J. Ch.

SMtety of Archittctt v. Kendrick, 158; Ftirrar v. C'oo/(«r, 44 V. I).

(1910) 102 L. T. 626 ; 26 T. L. E. p. 3:2n ; 68 L. J. Ch. p. 508.

433 ; see as to enforcing by-laws, (J) Kittt v. Moore. (1895) 1 Q. B.

AU..thii. V. Oibb, (1909) 2 Ch. 253; 64 L. J. Ch. Wi. As to

p. 277 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 627. restraining arbitration proceetlings,

(t) SlUma* Carrmsbm, (1901) w»poit. Chap. XXI.

2 Ch. 278, 279 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 677, {•) See SlIU v. Or^, 6 Sim. 214,

680; Harrington {Earl) ▼. I)m*p SM ; 2 L. J. (M. 8.) Ok. 181 ; 38

Corporation, (1905) I Ch. m MI ; B. B. 98 ; BaJtigh OomAm, (18M)

74 L. J. Ch. 'il9, 227. 1 Ch. 73 ; 67 L. J. Gk 89.

(«) Pennell v. hoy, 3 De G. M. (./) Oladtlont v. Ottoman Bank,

& Q. 133; 22 L. J. Ch. 414 ; 98 1 H. & M. 605 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 228,

8

jumsDicnoM by injunction.

CbHK II.

No juriKiictiou
in mtttcn
mcrelj crimiMl
or iamonl.

Crimiaal
prooMdingi.

PneMdingi
bafora angii-
tntw.

_ th« oODtnete of a foreign go?emtn«it against the jmperty

of such government in England (g), or to prevent a foreign
sovereign from removing his property in this country (h), or
to make a decree against a foreign ambassador who does not
submit to the jurisdiction (j).

The Court will not interfere by injunction in matters merely
criminal or immoral, which do not affect any right to pro-
perty (*). But if an act which is eriminal tmiehM also the
enjoyment of property, the Court has jurisdiction, but its
interference is founded solely on the ground of injury to
property (0. ^

The Court will not, it seems, interfere by injunctiwi to
prevent criminal proceedings being taken by a plaintiff against
the defoidant in a pending action, notwithstanding that the
criminal proceedings and the action are both based on the
same wrongful act, unless the objects are identical (w).

Nw will the Court, as a general rule, interfere by injunction
with iwoeeedings before magistrates fw the recovery of
penalties for the breach of statutes (n), unless Ha Attimiey-
Oeneral is a party (o).

is) Smith T. Wegvelin, 8 Eq. 198 ;
38 L. J. Ch. 465; Twi/crogt v.
Ihey/ui, fi C. D. 605 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
510.

(A) Vavcuour v. Kriipp, 9 C. D.
351 ; 39 L. T. 437.

{»') OUuUtone v. Miiturtii Bey, 1
H. & M. 495 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 228.
See Musurut Bey y. Oadhan, (1894)

2 a a 3S2 ; 83 L. J. a & 621.
(k) AU-Oen. v. ShrJMd Oat Co.,

3 De O. H. ft G. p. 320 ; ?2 L. J.
Ch. 81 1 ; 98 E. B. 151 ; £n , t. or of
Aiiitria v. Diit/, 3 De O. P. & J.
217, 239, 2.53 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 690, 712 ;
Springfi.U Spiniiiiiy Co. v. Biley,
6 Et). 551; 37 L. J. Ch. S89 ;
Sleiths V. Clwirji, (1901) 1 Ch.

r . 904 ; 70 L. J. Ch. p. 675.

(/) Mataulay v. acMcdl, 1 Bli.
(N. a) P.O. p. 127; 8L. J,(0.a)
Oh. 80; AH.-Oat,y. 8kt£Uld Oat
«>., 8Ds O, M. * O. SM; 22 L. J.

Ch. 811 ; 98 R. B. 151 ; Emperor of
Auilria v. Day, 3 De O. F. 4 J.
253 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 690; Mogul
Steavuhip Co. v. Macgrtgor, 1»
Q. B. D. 476; 64 L. J. Q. B. 640.

(to) Saull V. Browne, 10 Ob. 04 ;
44 L. J. Ch. 1 ; Kerr t. Mayor of
iV«i<«>««,60.D.p.467 ; 46L.J.Ch.
409, 410; Orand Junction Water-
wtrkt Co. r. Hampton Urban Coun-
cil. (1898) 2 Ch. 8*1, 84S: 87
L. J. Ch. p. 608.

(n) Kerr v. Mayor oj Pretton, 6
C. D. p. 467; 46 L. J. Ch. 408.
410 ; Staiinardy. Camberwdl Veitry,
20 C. D. 190. leS; 61 L. J. Ch.'
629. 632; Qnmd Jjrjgim Wmltr.
MMrke Co. v. BtmfUn, (1898) 2 Ch.
841. 842. 844 ; 87 L. J.Ch. p. 610;
Devonport Corporation v. Tour
(1902) 2 Ch. p. 185, (mS) 1 Ck

For note (o) lee p. 9.

JTJBISDIOnON BY INJUNCTION.

9

Nor where the Legislature has provided a spedal tribonal
for the deciaion of s questkm, should the Coort, except in
very special cetee, interfere by injonetioQ or deokr»tion ci

right (p).

Where s etatate prorides a partieolar remedy for tiie

infringement of u " right of property," the jurisdiction of the
Court to protect the right by injunction is not excluded, unless
the statute so provides (g).

And where there has been a breach of a statutory enact-
ment, for which the sole remedy provided is a penalty, an
injunction may be granted to prevent future breaches which
are threat«ied (r).

In the winding up of a company, the Court has jurisdiction
to restrain by injunction qua*i criminal proceedings which
are being taken against the company to recover pmalties (•).
So also where a petition has been presented for winding up a
company, the Court has jurisdiction to restrain {woceedings

SptaU MkwMl

pruvidol bj
tUtiit* for
iafriim«MBt ti

Fatal* lifwielM
of itatale,
restnuBod
thoogh ifeafal
stotutoi;
remadf, or
peiwltj.

Windiog up
oompanj.

7aB, 72 L. J Ch. p. 416;

Merrick v. Livtrp<iul Corj/oratum,
(1910) 2 Ch. 449, 4fl0; 79 L. J. Cit.
7fil, 766.

(o) AU.-0*». y. Aikboume Be-
cTMlMM anm»d, (UN») 1 Ch. 101,
107 ; 79 L. J. Oh. p. «B; DtvmfoH
T. Ttttmr, (1903) 1 Ch. 709; 72
L. J. Ch. 411 ; Att.-a»n. t. Win-
bUdoii House Estate Co., (1904) 2
Ch. 34, 41; 73 L J. Ch. p. 695;
Atl.-den.y. Puntyfiridd Wateru-orkt
Co., (1908) 1 Ch. 398, 399; 77
L. J. Ch. 237. 239.

(j>) Skumard t. Cantbtrwdl Vetirfi,
20 C. D. 190; M L. J. Ch. ^9;
Orand Junction WcUerworhi Oo. r.
Hampton, (1898) 2 Ch. p. 331; 67
Ij. J. Ch. 603 ; Vevonport Corpora-
tivn V. Tozer, (1902) 2 Ch. p. 195;
(1903) 1 Ch. p. 764; 72 L. J. Ch.
416; Burghet v. Att. Oen., (1911)
2 Ch. 156, 157 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 516.
See Eitdan v. Hamptiead Corpora-
tion, (1905) S Oh. 633, 642 ; 75
L. J. Oh. p. as ; of. jU(.-0m. v.

Stiiffordehire County Council, (1906)
1 Ch. p. 344; Att.-den. v. Ponty-
pridd n'ateruMrkt Co., tujira.

(q) Coojter v. Whittingham, 15
C. U. 506, 507 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 752,
766; Stevtiuy. Ckoum, (1901) 1 Ch.
904, 906 ; 70 L. J. Ch. S70. <7S:
AU.-Oen. v. Athhonrne StertaHen
Onmnd, (1U03) 1 Ch. p. 107; 72
L. J. Ch. p. 69 ; Att.-Oen. v. Wim-
Uedon House Estate Co., (1904) 2
Ch. 34, 41 : 73 L. J. Ch. 593, 595 ;
and see Carlton llltutrators v.
CotemiiH <t Co., (1911) 1 K. B. 782,
783 ; 80 L. J. K. B. p. 616; Fraier
T. Fear, (1912) 107 L. T. 424. 428;
67 S. J. 29.

(r) Coeptr v. WkUUmgkam, tttpra,
p. 607 ; 49 Zi. J. Ch. 762, 766;
Att.-Otn. y. Athhowm* AcrttUion
Oround, siqyra ; Carltm JtMmlm
V. Cctemaii, supra.

(«) lie Briton, tic. Life Astocia-
titm, .H2 C. D. 60 ; 39 C. D. p. 64 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 874, decided under
Met86,CM^anMAot.l862. Sm

10

JUBISOICTION BY INJUNCTION.

CUp. IL

Politi.'tl
mttwa.

Osatneti awde

Forei^D

_ on » amnmoiu for enforcing poor rate* owing by the cwa-

pany (/).

Mutiora of a politicttl nature do not come within tlie juris-
diction of the Court. The Court will not interfere with the
view of preventing revolution in u foreign country, or in favour
either of the prerogative of a foreign sovereign or the political
rights of his subjectB, or in aid of the revenue laws of a
foreign country. But if a case of injury to the iHDperty of
a foreign sovereign or his government or his subjects be auule
out, the Court has jurisdiction to interfere at the suit of «
foreign sovereign («).

The Court will not enforce u contract entered into abroad,
although it be valid by the law of the country in which it was
made, in cases where the Court deems the contract to be
in contrav«ition of some essential iH>inoipie of justice or
morality (x).

In actions in personam the Court will enforce foreign judg-
ments, (i.) where the defendant is a subject of the foreipt
country in which the judgment has been obtuiiiod ; (ii.) where
he was resident in the foreign country when the action begttn ;
(iii.) where the defendant in the character of plaintiff has
selected the forum in which he is aftciTvards sued ; (ir.) wfaar*
he has voluntarily appeared ; and (v.) nhere he has contracted
to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment was
obtained (y), but the fact of possessing property situate in a
foreign country, or the fact of entering into a contract in
such country dealing with that property, does not give the
now sect. 140, Oompuiies (Coiwdi. 306 ; AnmiOm v. Rauillm, 14 C. D

dation) Aet. 1908.

(<) JU FIM, «<f., O)., 56 L. J. Cix.
232 ; In n Wearmoiilh Crown Ulata
Co., 19 C. D. 640 ; and see sect. 140,
tnpra (s).

(«) Kmpmir of Amtria v. 7)aj/,
3 lie G. F. & J. 217 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
690; I'niitd Statet v. Prioltau, 2
H.ftM.U0; 2£q. eS»;3AL.J.
Ck.1.

(<r) Einfmr ^ Atutria v. Dag,
r UtfM ▼. Aip*, 8 De O.M. *

341 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 338 ; Kuu/man
V. Otrtm, (1904) 1 K. B. 591 ; 73
I.. J. K. B. 320 ; Re Fitzyerald, Sur-
mui, V. Fitzgerald, (1904) 1 Ch. 673,
597 ; 73 L. J. I'h. 436; Moulit v.
Owe,,, (1907) 1 K B. 746 ; 76 L. J.
K. B. 396 ; Saxhy v. Fuiion, (1909)
2 K. B. p. 232 ; 78 L. J. K. B.
p. 794.

(y) BomOmj. AmmOIm, 14 C. D.

p. 371; 49 L. J. Oh. 344;
Emanuel v. Symon, (1908) I K. B.
a. TSl ; aeL. J. Ch. 417 ; l W B. B. 302, 309 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 180, 185

JtJMSDICnON BY INJUKCnoH.

Courts of the foreign country jurisdiction in an action in
penonam ovmr • BritMi tDbjMrt who was not rwident in th*

foreigi! country at the (lute of the action, unci who husi not
appeared in the proceedings, nor agrted to submit to the juris-
diction of the foreign Court (2).

In granting injum-tionN the Court Ojierates in perKumm. Iiii»"e»Jo«
The person to whom its orders are addressed must be within •» ;
the reach of the Court or amenable to its jurisdiction (a).
But the Court will not suffer any one within its reach to do
what is contrary i • its notions of equity, merely because the
act to be done may bt;, in point of locality, beyond its juris-
diction (h).

As a consequence of the rule, tluit in granting un injunction
the Coun operates in personam, the Court may exercise juris-
diction indei«ndently of the lo^lity of the act to be done,
{NTOVided the person against whmn relief is sought is within
the reach and amenalilo to the process of the Court. This
jurisdiction is not grounded upon any pretension to the
exeroise of judicial or admintstratire rights almiad, but on
the circumstance of the j)erson to whom the order is addressed
being wiihin the reach of the Court (c). fiut an English
Court will not pronounce a decree, ttren in personam, which
can have no specific operation without the intervention of a
foreign Court, and which in the country where the lands to
be charged by it lie, wouid probably be treated as a brutum
fvimtn {d). Nor will tiie Court adjudicate on questioos

lt,r Huckley.L.J. ; and see y'/,i7/f;«i ' M. & K. p. 108; 4 L. J. (N. S.)

V. liatho, (1913)3 K. B. p. 2!-: 82 Ch. 241; 41 E. K. 23; Kuihhn v.

L. J. K. B. p. 885. Munday, 5 Madd. 307; 21 H. R.

(z) KmoHUfl V. Symm, (l!")8) 1 294; Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren,

K. B. aOS ; 77 L. J. K. B. 180. tupra ; Lord Cratutown t. Johnilm,

(u) Baditeht Atuiin Fabrik r. 3 Va*. 170, ; 6 Yea. 877 ; 3B. B.

./oANteiii»Co., (1897)2Ch. p.84S; aO;Dtidtrr.Amil»rdam»ekTru$lta,

(1898) A. C. p. 203 ; 6« L. J. Ch. (1902) 2 Cli. 141, 142 ; 71 L. J. Ch.

497; 67 L. J. Ch. 141; Bank »/ e'22; Bank of A/riea y. Cohen, {Ifm)

Africa v. Cohen, (1908) 2Cll.p.l4«; 2 Ch. p. 146; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 780 ;

78 L. J. Ch. p. 780. BHti>h Smith Africa Co. v. Dt Betrt

(i) The Camm Iron Co. v. Mac- d Co., (1910) 2 Ch. p. 514 ; 80 L. J.

iareit, b H. L. U. 416, 430; 24 Ch. 77 ; HW/ v. Cutmully, \

L. J. Ch 620 ; 101 B. R 229. Ch. 744, 745 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 416.

(c) Lord PartarlimgUm y. Soulbg, (<<) Norri$ j. VhanUtrm, 3 !)• Q. F.

18

JUBIBDICnON BY INJUNCTION.

_ relating to the title to or the right to tlio {toHgegnion of land
aituute abroHd (r), fxc jit in oases where there exists between

tht- pnities to tiio !uiit in Eriglnrifl, ii jwisoiia! obligation
Bribing out of contract, or implied contract, fiduciary relation-
ship w fraud, or other eontntct, which in the view of a Court
of I<:qiiity in this country, would lu- uiicoriHcionablo ; thus in
cases of trusts, specitlc pcrforuiance of tontructn, fon-ciosure,
or redemption of mortgages, or in the case of land obtained
by a (lefcndunt by fraud, or other unconscionable eondaet, the
Court would assume jurisdiction, but vflwre there is no con
tract, no fiduciary relationship, and no fraud or other un-
cmscionable ccmduct giving rise to a personal obligation
between thu pirties, and thi. whole question is whether or
not according to the law of the loctu the claim of titJe set up
by one party would be prefered to the claim of another party,
the Court should not entertain jurisdiction to decide the
matter (/). Moreover when a matter in dispute is l)eing liti-
gated in a foreign Court which has the means of deciding up(jn
un<l enforcing tlie rights of the parties, the Court here will
not, in genej-»l, interfere (//).
AppH«tio» to Upon the y nciple that the Court act. in peraomm in
granting an injunction, it appears that it has p^twer, upon a
proper case bei mad.' out, to restrain a man from appi>ing
to Parliament (ft.) : out the jurisdiction will only be eisrciaed

* J. 584 ; 30 U J. Vh. 284 ; ne rhamja 80 L. J. Ch. p. 77

V. ^^i!ler, (1908) 1 Cli. 863. 8«4; (/) Dmchamp, 'v. MilUr, iUm)

T, L. J. Ch.^i30i BttHko/ A/riea lCli.a«,864 ; 77 L. J. ( h p 42C

v. CbA««. (IBW) 3 Cb. pp. 146, 147 ; (g) North v. C/mmlT,,. :i De O F

78 L. J. Ch. p. 780 ; Britith South & J. 583 ; 30 I,. J. Ch l!85 • and

A/nettCe.r. Ot Bttn * Co., {mo) cf FUul.tr v. JloJyer,, 27 \V B.

3 Oi. 414, •17 ; 80 L. J. du 97 ; and II,,ma,i y. Helm, 24 C. D.

, ; '"id «!e Loyan y. Bank of

[t] Companhia de Mtfamliv/iif v. ,Sro</an,/, (l!H»ti) 1 K. B. 141 IM-

BritUh .%,«</, Africa Co., (1893) 75 L. J. K B. 218. 222- uid

A. C. 602; (U L. J. Q. B. 80; Vardifmlo r. Vardcpulo, (1909) 28

and Bee Tht Black Poiut Syudkatt T. L. B. 518.

iJa^ Cm^tmion, Co.. 79 L. T. (h) ITare r. Grand Junctic,

OK; Bank o/ Africa r.Coke>t.{Um9) Water ('„., 2 B. & M. 470 483-

3 CJl p. 146; 78 L. J. Ch. p 780 ; i, L. J. (O. .S.I ( I, kjq ni .

BritKhHouth Ani.„V„.>i.l)eBerr, P. fi. 136; hcathcoU v North

* Co., lupra, (1910) 2 Ch. p. 617 ; tHaffordthire Baiiway O,.. 2 lUc *

JURISDICTION BY INJUNCTION.

18

under rery exceptional circumstances, and it is difficult t ^

oooeeive a case in whicli such a course could be adopt' ' (i)

Tbtt Coort eannot, howgw, rwtnia • bwb from spplyiiig for Application (•

a grant to a fornifrn ^ovrrr>ign, nor, itftwr the grant is made, |^S«N%ib

can the Court prevent a man from nsbig the grant made by

the «niM WTMwign sntfiortty. 1h» fact that th* pint M

made may be inconsiHtpnt with ii grant preriously made by

the same sorer' -^n autiiority does not gire s man any <qni^

to apply to the Court (k).

An tnjnnction being an order directed to a pmon, it iom injonetion doe*
not run with the land (I). the i»nd.

Under th«- former i>rocedare, the Court of Chancery bad injaBetioM to
jarisdiotitm to restrain by injnneti<» an action at tow hi all nHt-nHiiiifcifl
cases where the defendant to tho action could show that he
i.ad a good equitable defence. But this jurisdiction has been
abolished by the Judicature Act, 1878. It is there declared
that no cause or proceeding, at iciy time pending in the High
Court of Justice or before thi Court of Appeal, shall be
I'bstrained by prohibition or injunction, but that every matter
of eqnity on whidt an injaiiciion againet tiie proeeeatioii of
any such ctiuso or pro- 1 ' mi. liave been obtained, if this
Act had not passed, either ' ^ ^'tionally or on any terms or
cmiditions, may be relif ' v - > . of d^ntee tiiereto (m).

Although the Court hn /t i jurisdictiOQ to restrt l:. a

pending o tion, an injunc n lau/ be granted to reetrain '.Hr
institution of proceedings in the Hi^ Court of Justici > >; )

O. ie9; M B. B. 25 ; SMtm amd mb-f. S ; m* OartnU t. Fau, 1

HnrtUpool Railwtty Co. r. T.MtU amd Ch. D. ISA ; 4fi L. J. Ch. 133 ; Tht

Thirsk RnUimy Co.. 2 Ph. AM, Jiorrt WtHoll, (19M) V p. 61 ; 74

670. ^ P. r 11.

(0 lb.; Stfth V. North Metro- . Iletant v. W-"l, 12 C. P.
fioMn,, Railway Co., 2 Ch.9n,9IO, Hart v. /Air' 18 C. D. 670,

(6 L. J. Ch. .MO. ti8o ; 50 I.. J. Ch. 697 ; and see

{k) Gladniont y. Ottoman Bank, 1 Ctrrle Rettaitrant,elc.,Co.y. f.attry,

H. ft M. M6; 32 L. J. Ch. 228. 18 C. D. .U5 ; SO L. J. Ck. 837 ;

({) Att.-Qm. T. Btrminghmm, tif., mmd Inrt A Otm^frntg, (ISM) 3

Draimtge Bmrd, 17 C. D. flU,60S: 349; Ma fr. re MMtbme Palace of

50 L. J. Ch. 786, 787 ; and Me VarieHn, (ISffr 2 Ch. p. 286 ; 78

.itt..nen. ^ Ihrking.MV. D. MS; L. J . ( -h. p. 7'*e ; and fmt, Obmp.

61 L. J. Ch. 686. XX.

(m) M * «T «. M, a. M

14

jmrsDicnoN by injunction.

— The prerogative of the Crown to intenrene in actions affect-
T^Tali '"^ ''8'^* ""'^ revenue of the Sorereign has not been
J^dklta^Ad.. ^^^'^^^ Judicature Acts (o) : and the proper tribunal

for the determination of such matters is the Revenue side of
the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justiee (p).

cCLt' cwt"' . ^ ''""'"^ '""^ .Tudicature Act, 1878, s. 89,

by injunction, in actions within its jurisdiction, power to grant an injunc-
tion (q), whether interlocutory or perpetual (r), including
actions in which an injunction only is claimed, provided the
case is one in which, if damages had been claimed, the amount
would have been within the jurisdiction of a County Court («).
Obedience to the order can he enforced by cMnmittal (t).
The County Court has no jurisdiction fo restrain the infringe-
ment of a patent if its validity is disputed (u), nor to restrain
the infringement of a registered trade mark (x), and it has
been doubted whether the County Court can grant an injunc-
tion to restrain a threatened injury where no damage has been
sustained (p). Where the only question before the Court is
whether an injunction shall be granted or not, an appeal
lies without leave, notwithstanding the provisions of sec-
tion 120 of the County Courts Act, 1888 (z).

It has been held that section 116, sub-sect. 2 of the County
Courts Act, 18R8, which d(-prives a plaintiff of costs who
brings nn action found.Hl on tort in the High Court and

(o) AU..Qm. V. CimtabU. 4 Exoh. a B. D. 623 ; we County Ctonrt

n. 172; 48 L. J. Ejt.4M; 8teii% Rnlee. 1003-1912, Order XU

e/Aldtrt«!t{Lcrdiv.WUdandSm, r. 6 ; Older XXH r Ifi

(1900) 1 a B. 267; 69 L. J. Q. B. (,) SWe» v. KrrU,tone, (imj), 1

818; and see VImann v. Coiifi K. B. 544; 72 L. J. K. B. 256.

Harhour Cmnmisiionns, (1909) 2 («) Martin v. Hani,ter, 4 Q B D

K. B. 1 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 877. 491 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 077.

ip) Ntanlf,, of AMrrley (Lot,I) v. («) Reg. v. Halifas Conntg CmH

n iW anr/ Son. tn/^a. ,/,„A,,, (ig^i) 2 a B. 268 ; 60 L. J

(7) See Kfaies v. Woodward, Q. B. 650; Aw v. Fort, (19051 1

(1902) 1. K. B. p. 638; 71 L. J. KB. p. 698 ; 74 L. Z K B

E. B. p. 329 ; SMu t. &dmloM, p. 342.

(19M) 1 K. B. 644 ; 72 L. J. K. B. (r) Bo,^ r. ffart, .„,.n,

256; Me also Comity Coart Bules (..,) Afartin v. limmUr, ,u,,ra.

1903—1912, Order XII., rules 6, (j) Brnne y. JamaAim) I Q B

11 ; Order XXII., rule IB. 417 ; 67 L. J. a B. 288.

(r) Rirhmrdt v. Culhtrne, 7

JURISDICTION BY INJUNCTION.

15

recoren le«s than 101. damages, does not apply where the chmp. ii.
main relief sought is an injunction (a).

In any cause or matter in which an injunction has been injoaetiaB
or might have been granted, the plaintiff may before or after JS^'rf "SSJid
judgment apply fw an injunctitm to reatrain the defmdant *^ I"«k>> <^
or respondent from the repetition or eontinuance of the
wrongful act or breach of contract complained of, or from the
commiasion of any injury or breach of contract of a like
kind relating to the same property or right, or arising out of
the same contract, and the Court or a judge may grant the
injunction either upon or without terms as may be just (6).

(a) A'«afe< v. Woodward, (1902) on his claim for an injunntioo,

1 K. B. 532 ; 71 L. J. K. B. ;)25 ; and recrrered under IW. on hk

/)« Pntquier v. Cadbnry Co., alternative claim for oompenaatiMi,

(1903) 1 K. B. 108; 72 L. J. see CliHionv. BenneU,(l9W)XK.B.

K. B. p. 81 ; and see Dnherty y. 100; 77 L. J. K. B. 52.

Thon^mn, (1906) M L. T. 828. (>) Order L., r. 12.
A* to eocta wkare a pUintiS failed

CHAPTEB III.
itrjDNonoirs aoaikbt tbb violatioh or ooxMOw law hobts.

sBcnoH 1. — THE PBononoN or lboal biobts to n/tnwrt

PBNDINO LmOAnOK.

Ciatp. m. The jurisdiction of the High Court of Jnstioe by injunction

^^^h is not confined to the protection of equitable rights, but

le^riihu"' extends to the protecti<m of legal rights to property from
^dugUMiii- damage pending litigation. The protection of legal rights to
property from irreparable or at least from sei-ious damage
pending the trial of the legal right was part of the original
and proper oflSce of the Court of Chancery (a). In exercising
the jurisdiction the Court does not pretend to determine legal
rights to property, but merely keeps the property in its actual
eonditicm nntil the legal title can be established (b). The
Court interferes on the assumption that the party who seeks
its interference has the legal right which he asserts, but needs
the aid of the Court for the protection of the property in ques-
tion until the lepnl right can be ascertained (c). The offlee
of the Court to interfere bring founded on the existence of the
legal right, a man who seeks the aid of the Court must be able
to dmw a fair primA faeie ease in sappert of tihe title wbit^
he asserts (rf). lie is not required to r ;!ke out a clear legal
title, but he must satisfy the Court that he has a fair question

(a) mUon Ltrd OrvHviUe, Ci. 4S7 ; 80 L. J. K. B. p. 186.

& Ph. 28.3, 292 ; 10 L. J. Oh. MS; (r) lb.

54 B. R. 297. (rf) Saiindern v. Smith, 3 M. & C.

(h) Ilarman v. Jnnr>. Or. & Ph. 714, 728; 7 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 227;

293, ;«)1 ; mark- Point Syndicate v. 45 B. B. 367 ; Hilton v. Lord Grun-

Kattern rnm-ffsion/i Co., 79 I,. T. p. ville, Cr. ft Hj. 283, »2 ; 10 Ij. J.

662; r.ene^d:Co.y.CaUinghamand Ch. 398; MB. B. SOT; Lenry i

Th,mpion, (1908) I K. B. 84,86 ; 77 Ch. r. CMin^um md Thompmn,

L. J. K. B. p. 67 ; JoMt v. Paaiya m^ira.
SuUir.tle., Co., (1911) 1 K. B. p.

BY INJUNCTION FUNDING TRIAl OP THE RIGHT.

17

to raise as to the existence of the legal right which he sets ci»»p. iii.
ip (e), and that there are substantial grounds for doubting ^wt. l.
the existence of the alleged legal right, the exercise of which
he seeks to prevent (/). The Court must, before disturbing
any mm's legal ri^t, or tbrip^ng him (rf any of the ri^tts
with which the law has clothed him, be satisfied that the prob-
ability is in favour of his case ultimately failing ia the final
issae of the suit (g) . The mere existence of a doubt as to tite
plaintiff's right to the property, interference with which he
seeks to restrain, does not of itself constitute a sufficient
ground for refusing an injunction, though it is always a
circumstance whidi eaik for the attenti<m of the Court (A).
Where the question of right had been decided in tihe plain-
tiff's favour in a Court of law, the fact that an ajqteal waa
pending was held to be no ground tor a Court of equity refus-
ing an injunction, unless the Court doabted the correctness of
the decision at law (t) . But the pendency of the appeal might
be a ground for the Court postponing the operation of the
injunction (k).

If the legal right is not disputed, a man who seeks the aid A cue of artind
of the Court must be able to show that the act con; plained of "oUt^'*of*tii<>
is in fact a violation erf the right, or is at least an act which. '^""^"^ ^

" ' mtda out.

if carried into effect, will necessarily result in a violation of

the right {I) . The mere prospect or apprehension of injury or

(c) ahnwtburg attd Cht$Ur Hail- 64 L. J. Ch. 736 ; AU.-Om. v.

u!ctfCo.t.8krtw*kuryandBirming- Birmingham, Tame, etc, Drainage

ham Sailteay Co., 1 Sim. N. S. 410, Board, (1908) 2 Ch. 563 ; on appeal,

426 ; 20L.J.Ch.874; 89R.B.143. (1910)1 Ch. 48,62; 79 L. J. Ch.

(/) .Sparrow v. Or/,>r,l. nWret- 137; (18l») A. & 788 ; « L.

ter, and Wolrerhamptoii liailwai/ Ch. 45.

('..., 9 Ha. 436, 441 ; 2 I)e O. M. & (/) Kiirl of Uipon v. HolHirt, 3 M.

Q. 94 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 95 E. R. 21. & K. 1«». 176 ; 3 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch.

(v) Ati.-Gen. v. Mayor of Wigan, 145 ; 41 B. B. 40 ; Haitu* r. Ti^for,

5DeO.M.ft0.fi2; 101 B. B. 600. 10 Bmv. 75; 2 1^809; 78 B. B.

(A) OOmder/r. BlmA, 4 De O. * 71 ; /Mmm t. Oa/ori, I8B9. 359 ;

S.211;20L.J.Oh.l«6;87R.B.3S3. 43 L. J. Ch. 524 ; (TomMoW T. //yiM,

(») AU.-Om. y. Proprietort of 25 C. D. 190 ; 60 L. T. 96 ; Fletcher

Hradford Caual. L. E. 2 tiq. 71. v. liealey. 28 C. D. 688 ; 64 L. J.

(*) L. E. 2 E<i. pp. 79, 84; Ch. 424 ; Fi<lden v. fVw, (1906) 22

Hhelfrr v. Citi/ nf r.mulon Electric T. L. E. 41 1 ; see Fraxr v. Fmr,

Lighting Co., (1894) 2 Ch. 388; (19121 107 L. T. 423 ; 57 a J. 29.

18

PBOTECTION OF LEGAL BIGHTS TO PBOPEBTY

I'liap III.
Stct. 1.

Bmttsining
foUowing Uade.

IrrepAnbl*
danuige.

the mere belief that the met omiiiluiied of may or will bo

(lone, is not sufficient (m) ; but if an intention to do the act
complained oi can be shown to exist, or if a man insists on
his right to do, or begins to do, (ht threatens to do, or gnx%
notice irf his intention to do aa act which must, in the opiniua
of the Court, if completed, give a ground of action, there is a
foundation fw the exercise of the jurisdiction (n). Iho mere
denial by a man of his intoation to do an at^ or to iafriiige a
l ight will not prevent the Court from interfering (o); but if a
mull who claims a right to do a certain act asserts positively
that bef(H% proceeding to do the act, he will give reaaonaUo
iM^ee of his intention to do it, and there is no reason to doubt
the truth of his assurance, the Court will not interfere (p).

The Court should not grant an intorlocotory injunction
on a prima facie case, restraining a defendant frwn following
his trade or profession, if it is clear that such an order will
prevent the defendant from earning bis livelihood (9).

A mm who seeks tiie aid (rf the Court by way of inim-
locutory injunction, must, as a rule (r), be able to satisfy the

(m) Earlo/MiponY. Hobart,3U. PkiUif t. TkamM, «B L. T. TM;

LiMmmfiim Qmarrim Co. ». Bol-
lix gtr and Cheltenham SurcU Dittrict
CuunHl, (1904) 20 T. L. E. 5{9
(affirmed on appeal on question of
costs, 21 T. L. B. 632); Carltcm
Iltiistratorav. CWetnon <t Co., (1911)
1 K. B. at p. 783 ; 80 L. J. K B.
p. 8la ; Dickeiu v. National 3U».
phoM Go.. (1911) 74 J. P. W7:
TkemUa w. Wmk$, 1 Ol

4M.444: 89L.J.Ch.2W.

(o) Jaekmm v. Oator, 5 Ve* 688 ;
6 E. B. 144 ; PotU y. Leiy, 2 Drew.
272, 279; 100 B. E. 131 ; Adair v.
Young, 12 C. D. 19.
(p) Lord Cowley v By at, S C. D. 950.
(v) I'alace Theatn Co. v. Clenty,
(:9fl9) 26 T. L. &. 38, ^ Yma^bMi
Williauis, L.J, Ju tikis the
iajaootkm WM gnirtsd,tlM ^aintiff
kaving andertakan to mpfiy lor as
immediate trial,
(r) Am to OMM where an injoae-

ft K. 174; 3L. J.(N.&)Ci. IM;
41 S. B. 40; JioinM t. T^or, 10
Bear. 76 ; 2 Ph. 209 ; 78 B. B. 71 ;

Ait.-Otn. v. Corporation of Man-
rhater, (1893) 2 Gh. 87. 91 ; 62 L. J.
Cb. -15 ; Att.-Oen. v. liathmiiie» and
I'eu.bruke Hotpitat Hoard, (1904) 1
I. U. 1 6 1 , and Att.- lien. v. Nottingham
Corp.,ratu.ti, (1904) 1 Ch. 673, 677 ;
73 L. J. I'll. p. 514, where theprin-
dfim on which the Court piooeeda
m gnmtiiig or Mtaaing injunction*
fMS Umtl are discniaed ; Att.-Oen.
T. Jhrm, (1912) 1 Ch. p. 378 ; 81
luJ.aLf. 23ft.

(«) Att.-Oen. V. fWbe; 2 M. & C.
p. 43 11. n. 13; Tipi^ny v.

Kikertley, 2 K. & J. 264, 270 ; 110
B. B. 216; Uexl v. GUI, 7 Ch. 699,
711; 41 L. J. Ch. 761; Cooptr v.
WhitUngham, IS C. D. 001 ; 49
L. J. Ch. 70S; ah^fto V. BUdcow A
Cb.,S4 O.D. 7»: 34 W. B. ««2;

BY INJUNCTION PENDING TfilAL OF THE BIOHT.

19

Court that its interference ia necessary to protect him from Ch»p. III.

that species of injury which the Court calls irreparable, before

the legal right can be established upon trial (s). By the term

" irreparable injury " it is not meant that there must be no

physical possilnlity of repairing the injury; all that is meant

is, that the injury would be a iniaerial one, and one which

could not be adequately remedied by damages (t) ; and by the

term " the inadequacy of the remedy by damages " i« meant

that the remedy by damages is not such a compensation m will

in effect, though noo •« specie, place the parties in the position

in which tliey form3riy stood (u). If the act complained of

threatens to destroy the subject-matter in qtt«sti<m, the ease

may come within the principle, even though the damages may

be capable of being accurately measured (x). The fact that

the amount of damage cannot be a«eorsteIy ascertained may

constitute irreparable damage (y) ; but although the amount

of damage may be difficult to ascertain, a man who has on a

previous occasion ctnnpromised his rights against other

parties by accepting a sum of money, may preclude hiimHIf

from saying that the damage is irreparable and cannot be

compensated by money (2). It is, however, no objection to

tion is claimed against the breach {i) Pinchin y. LomUm mtd BInek-

ol Si negative covenant, see Doherty wall Railway Co., 0 De O. H, 4 Q.

V. AUtKm, 3 A. 0. 719, 1M; p. 860; M L. J. Ch. 41t; ga^

MeSuthum OoMm, (IMS) A. 0. p. UneaMr* Railway Co. JIbMr*.

107; 71 L. J. P. C. p. 21 ; Formby %, 8 Ha. p. 90; M B. E. 218;

T. Barhr, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 554; 72 AU.-Om. v. 8hfffi«ld Oat Co., 3

L. J. Ch. 721 ; EUiston v. Rracher, De O. M. & O. 304, 320 ; 22 L. J.

(1908) 2 Ch. p. 396 ; 79 L. J. Ch. Ch.811,813; Bloxamy. Metropolitan

p. 628; Ati.-Oen. v. Walthanutow Railu^ay, Z Ch. p. 364 ; .Turdtumj.

Urban Council, (1910) 1 Ch.p. 361 ; SuUon, etc., Oai Co., (1«99) 2 Ch.

79 L. J. Ch. p. 269 ; pott. Chap. X. 237, 238 ; «8 L. J. Ch. 467, 476.

(«) ZHifaT. Taylor, 3 DeO. P. 4 {«) WoeiT. a»Mit^»mm.V.B.

X467;30L. J. Ch. 281; Att.-Gm. p. 166; SI L. J. Oh. 168 ; MB.B.

r.SluitUd Oat Oo^3D9Q.U.It m

0.*H; ML.J. rai.811;98B.B. (x) BiUcn t. Lcrd OranvilU, Or.

in; Mmoh v. ShrewOury and & Ph. 283, 293; 10 L. J. Gh. SM;

Mrminghom Bait jay Co., 3 De O. 64 E. E. 297.

U. 4 G. p. 931 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 921 ; (y) Cory v. Yarmouth and Norwich

98 E. E. 960 ; Lumlty y. Wagner, 1 Railway Co. , 3 Ha. 603 ; 64 E. B. 4Sfl.

De O. M. & O. p. 613 ; M L. J. («) Wood v. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim. N. a

Ch. 898 ; 91 E. B. 199. 168, 160 ; SI L. J. Oh. SM ; W

so

PBOTECnON OP LEGAL RI0HT8 TO PROPERTY

SMt.!.

Conduct of the
pert; who weka
the aid of the
Court must he
fur md honett.

Aaqainonee.

the esercise of the jurisdiction by injunction that a man may
have a legal remedy. The questkm in all cssea is, iriiether the

remedy by damages is, under the circumstances of the case,
full and complete (o). ' A person by committing a wrongful
act (whether it be a pablie company for public purposes or a
private individual) is not entitled to ask the Court to sanction
his doing so by purchasing his neighbour's rights, by assess-
ing damages in that behalf " (b).

The jurisdiction of the Court to interfere by way of inter-
locutory injunction in support of a legal title being purely
equitable, it is governed upon strict equitable principles. The
Court, where its summary interference is invoked, always
looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application,
and will refuse to interfere, even in cases where it acknow-
ledges a right, unless his conduct in the matter has been fair
and honest, and free from any taint of fraud or illegality (c).

Parties who, possessing full knowledge of their rights, have

B. B. 262 ; Dowling t. Betjeman, 2
J. 4 H. p. 544 ; Ormerod v. Tod-
viorden, etc., Mill Co., 11 Q. B. D.
162. But see Aiiuworth v. Bentley,
14 W. R. eao, (532.

(n) See Lumley y. Watjrur, 1 De
O. M. <t O. 604. 616 ; 21 L. J. Ch.
898, 900 ; 91 R. B. 193 ; and Bj/tm
T. Muttul TaUint Wtdmmiler
Chamhen AnaekMrn, (1883) 1 Cb.
p. 128 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 206; Martin
V. Fricf, (1894) 1 Ch. 276; 63
L. J. Ch. 209; Shel/er v. City of
Lmulmt Klfctrie Liyht Co., (1895) 1
Ch. 287 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 216, 224 ;
Jordeson v. Suttim, etc., Oat Co.,
(1899) 2 Ch. 237, 238 ; 68 L. J. Ch.
M7; Obit* T. Hum* owl OolmUt
^om, (1804) A. 0. p. 183; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 493 ; ud we KnglM
T. MtlropolUm WaUr Board, (1907)
1 K. B. p. 603 ; 76 L. J. K. B.
p. 371 ; Riley v. Halifax Corpora-
tion, (1907) 97 L. T. 278; 23
T. L. B. 613 ; Jones v. TankerfilU
(£aW), (1909) 2 Ch. p. 446 ; 78

L. J. Ch. p. 761. As to breach of
negative covenants, «ee lupra, p. 18,
note (r), and Chap. X.

(i) Per Smith, L.J., in Shelf er v.
City of London Electric Liyhttny Co.,
(1895) 1 Ch. p. 322 ; 64 L. J. Oh.
p. 224 ; AUpoH v. ThtatemUim Ch..
72 L. T. U3: Oowpir v. LoiStr,
(1903) 2 Ch. p. 841 ; 72 L. J. Ch.
578; CoiU V. Home and Colonial
Stores, (1904) A. C. p. 193; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 493 ; Saunby v. London
(Out) Commitiionert, (1906) A. C
no. 115. 116; 75 L.J. P. C. p. 27;
Gilling v. Oraij, (1910) 27 T. L. B.
39.

(c) mainmort v. QUxmarganikire
Maffwoj/ Ok. 1 M. * K. p. 168 : S
L. J. (N. &) 88; 36 B. B. 288;
Ortat Weetem Bailivat/ Co. v.

Oxford, fVorcester, and trulverhamp-
tvn Railway Co., 3 De G. M. * O.
p. 359 ; 98 R. B. 175 ; WiUiamt v.
Roberii, 8 Ha. 326, 327; Jarvii y.
ItlingtoH ttorounh Cxmc*!, (1808) 78
J. P. Jo. 323.

BY INJUNCTION PENDING TRIAL OF THE RIGHT.

91

lain by, and by their conduct hare encouraged others to expend
numeys or alter their condition in omtraTention of the rights
for which they contend, cannot call upon the Court tm its
Rummary interference (d). Acquiescence by one of several
co-plaintiffs in the act complained of precludes the inter-
ference of the Court by injuneti(m ; and the role is the same
although some of the plaintiffs are infanta (e). The principle
applies with peculiar force where the property on which the
mOTieys are expended is mineral property (/), or property of
a speculative character (g), or if the act complained of is
caused by a public company in the execution and construction
of their works (fc). As the injury to a company in being
stayed (if it shall ultimately turn out that they are acting
lawfully) is great in proportion to the magnitude of their
operations, the Court will in general hold even slight acquies-
cence on the part of the complainant a bar to relief (t). The
extent of the expenditure is to a certain degree the measure of
the acquiescence (;).

In order to justify the application of the principle, it must
clearly appear that the party against whom acquiescence is
alleged was aware of his rights, and by his conduct encouraged
the other party to alter his cmidttion, and that the latter acted
upcm the faith of the encouragement so held mit (k). There

(<i) Great Western RnUway Co. v.
Oxford, Wortttter, and fVolrtrhamp'
ton Bmlmag Cb., 3 De O. M. O.
^ 3M : W B. B. 175 ; BoeMtk
Ctmat Cb. t. King, S Km. N. S. 78 ;
16 Be»T. 630 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 675 ; 89
R. R. 211; Bee Lee.l» {Dnke cf)
V. Amherst, 2 Ph. 123 ; 15 L. J. Ch.
37fi ; 78 E. fi. 94 ; fMriet v. Senr,
L. R. 7 Kq. 427 ; n'illmott v. Bnrher,
1") C. I). 105, 106; Rutiell v Watts,
2i) C. 1). 576; Ramsden v. Dyson,
L. R. 1 H. L. 129, 140 ; OivU Strriat
liutkai Itutrmmmt AmoeiaUem r.
Whitemm, (1899) 68 L. J. Ch. 484.

(e) Marker r. ifaritr, 9 Ha. 1,15
20 T,. J. Ch. 246, 251 ; 89 R. R. 306;

(/) (^Itgg v. Edmtudson, 8 De O.
M. * G. 787; 26 L. J. Oh. 673;

Emeri V. Vivian, 33 L. J. Ch. 513.

(g) See CVoMiey v. Derby Oa$
LifU Co., Wdwt P. 0. IW;
SaUam r. Tkmfum, ib., 378.

(A) AU-Oen. v. Grand JumeHim
Canal Co., (1900) 2 Ch. MO, 818;
78 L. J. Ch. 681, 684.

(«') Qrrenhalgh v Maiithester and
Birmingham Bailwny Co., 3 M. ft
C. 784; 8L. J. (N. 8.) Oh. 78; 48
R. R. 39.3.

(J) Oreal Western Railway Co.
T. Osjori, ifercnt^, etc., BailwaD
CIS., 3 De O. M. ft O. 341, 361 ; 98
R. R. 175.

[k) Marker v. MarJxr, 9 Ha.
p. 16 ; 20 ]',. J. Ch. 251 ; 89 R. R.
305 ; Green haigh v. Mancheittr and
Birmaigham Railway (V.S M. ftC.

M PBOTBCTION OP LEOAL RI0HT8 TO PROPERTY

c^y i- ia no Mqaieoeence if an act has been permitted, or expenditure

'■ — has been allowed to be made under an erroneous opini<m and

Wew,and in ignorance of thoconsequpncps or t he real facts (/).

The acquiescence of an agent, when acting within the scope
of his authority, is binding on the principal ; bat in order that
it should be binding the agent must be acting within the scope
of his authority (m). A corporation or company may be
boond by acqniesoence as well as an individual (n) .

The conduct and dealings of a man with others than the
party with whom the contest exists may constitute a case of
acquiescence, so as to preclude him from coming to the Court
for relief against a state of things to which bis own emidaet
has (o). Where, accordingly, the owners of a canal had
permitted several persons to supply their mills with water for
several purposes, the Court would not restrain a man who had
be«i allowed to lay down pipes to the canal from using the
water in the same way as his neighbours (;)).
Aeqaieneaoe. The mere objection to, or a mere protest on the part of the
plaintiff against, the act of the defendant, or a mere threat to
take legal proceedings, is not in general sufficient to exclude
the consequences of laches or acquiescence (q). Nor will the
oimtinual assertion of a claim, unaccompanied by any act to
give effect to it, keep alive a right which would be otherwise

791 ; 8 K J. (X. 8.) Ch. 75 ; 45 Railimy Co., 6 Bmv. 238.

E. B. 393 ; Banmlen v. J^son, L. fi. (») Laird r. Birkmthmi RaUwM

1 H. L. 129 ; Willmclt v. Barttr, 16 Co.. J<An. aoo ; 29 L. J. Ch. 218 ;

C D. m ; Buma r.WM$,26C. 123 K. H. 206; Jlill v. So„ih

D. p. 476; dml Servin MiuiceU Staffordthire Railway Co., 11 3\xx.

/nsMonentt Atociatioii V. Whitman, N. 8. 192.

([ •^W) 68 L. J. Ch. 484; and see {o)f{m.,Ml v. Murray, Jac.

f:"u>U.; v. n. nrhfr, (1908) 2 Ch. 374, p. 316 ; 23 fi. B. 75 ; Saunder, v.

392 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. «17 ; l'ig,i<dt Smith, 3 M. & C. 711, 730 ; 7 L. J.

V. .Mui./leiu^ County Connril, (1909) (N. S.) Ch. 227 ; 45 E. B. 367.

1 Ch 134, 146 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 820. (;,) Jlochdnle Catial Co. t. Ktmg,

(t) Baiikart v. lloughUm, 27 Beav. 2 Sim. N. R 78 ; 80 L. J. Oh. 678 ;

42a, 431 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 473 ; 122 89 R. R. 211.

B. B. 471 ; r«M» T. Euer, (1910) [q) Hirm{M,ham Canal Co. r.

26 T. h. E. 146. U.^j.l, 18 Ves. 516 ; 11 R. R. 245;

(to) See AU.-Om. v. Brigga, 1 \\ uks v. l/unl, John. 372; 123

Jur. N. S. 1084 ; Mi/ea v. ToUn, B. E. 157.
16 W. B. 466 ; Oordon v. Cheltenham

BT INJUNCTION PENDING TRIAL OF THE BIOHT.

98

precluded (r). But if nKHieys are expended »fter fall and

distinct notice that the work is objected to, and that steps '—

will be taken to prevent it («), or with full knowledge of the
true condition of the title (<) ; or if the acquioflcence is satis-
faetorily aeeoontfed for ud ezidained(«(), m, fbr instance, that
it has taken place upon the faith of a representation that no
grievance would result from or be |Hroduced by the act (v), or
the faith that negotiations were going on between the
parties with a view to the settlement of the dispute on points
in ecmteat between them («) ; or if the party against whom
aoquieacence is alleged was justified in assuming that his
rights would not be a&ected {y) ; or if the delay is while the
acts done are preliminary to the acts against which he claims
relief, and not such acts themselves (z) ; the consequences of
acquiescence are excluded. Nor will a nun be precluded from
relief on the ground of acquiescence in what he was led to
consider a mere temporary violation of his right (a). Nor
does the aoquiesoenee in a state of things idiieh produces
little injury warrant the subsequent extenst<m of them to an
extent productive of serious damage (b).

(r) CUgg j. Kdnumdton, 8 Da O. 3 Ou 874. W2 ; 77 L. 3. Cb. «17,

M. 4 O. 787 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 246 ; 114 628.

E. H. 279 ; Lehmann v. Macarthur, (») Davie* v. Marihall, 10 C. B.

3 Ch. 496. N. S. 711 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 64.

(«) Att.-aen. V. Sheffield Oat Co., (x) Innocent v. Midland Railway

3 D. M. 4a. 304, 328 ; 22 L. J. Ch. Co., 1 Ka. Ca. 242. 256.

811 ; 98 P-. E. 141; BoekdaU CatuU ^y) Att.-Uen. v. LettU Corporation,

Co. T. Kitig, 18 Beat. p. 843; 33 6Ch.p.594 ; 39L. J.Ch. 711 ; Hmith

L.J.Cai.a04 : 98B.B.288; Lord t. «m«A, 30 Bq. p. 603 ; 44 L. J.

J£ niMT* T. Johnxm, 1 0. D. 879; Oh. 680; tmt PigtM t. MidiUmc

45 L. J. Oh. 404. Cotmijf Ovtmcil. (1908) 1 CSi. p. 148 ;

(«) St mie V. Young, 2 De O. 4 J- 77 Tj. J. Ch. p. 820.

136, 142; 119 R. B. 56; Jtanwlen (z) Northam Bridije atid iioadt

V. Di/ton, L. R. 1 H. Ij. 129; Co. v. London and South Weitem

Prvftor V. Ben»i», 38 0. D. p. 780; Hailimy Co., 0 L. J. CSl. 377 ; 1

67 L. J. Ch. p. 22. Ra. Ua. 653.

(tt) OMtmd T. Tunhridge Well* (a) Gordon v. Chelfenliam Hnilirai)

Ommimtmert, 1 Ch. 349, 366 ; 36 Co., 5 Ueav. 229, 238 ; 59 It. R.

L. J. Ch. 883; Alt.'0*it. T. Cbr- 486; AU.-OeH. t. Luton Board

pomtion 0/ HM/ax, 17 W. B. HeaUk, 3 Jur. N. 8. 183 ; AU-Oen.

1088 ; Col'^t T. Simmt, 6 De G. M. 4 *. ttorongk ••/ Birmitti/kam, 4 K. 4

(}. I ; 23 I.. J. I h. 258 ; 104 R. R. J. 546; 116 H. B. US.

I ; see ElluUm v. Readier, (1908) (A) BankaHr. Houghtmt, 27B««v.

U PROTECTION OP LEGAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY

<^i" A l«R8 strong degree of scqnteieenee ia Buffloient to diamtitle

—^—^ B rwrty to an intrrlofn- ny inj.ii . lion tbin \h roq uired to debar
hill, from relief at the hearing of the cause. In distnining a
bill upon interioeutoiy ftppiieation. the C^)ort doe.* not con-
dudp n right, hut merely refugee, in the exercise of its diter*-
tion, to interfere gummarily in favour of a jwrty who has not
shown due diligence in making the application (c). " A short
acquiescence," said r,,,r<l Ungdale, in Gordon r. Chettmtum
Railway Company (d), " may propprly induce tho Court not to
interfere ex juirte. A longer actjuiescence may, under the cir-
cumstances, throw serioQB doubt upon the right of the plain-
tiff, and induce the Tourt not (o interfere by interlocutory
order even when applied for on notice. But when acquies-
cence is used as an argument in support of a demurrer, there
must, to make it effective, be such un acquiescence as wholly
to disentitle the plaintiff to any relief. It must he assumed
that the plaintiff had originally a right, but that he has
altogether deprived himself of it by acqnieseenee."

A man may by hia acquiesr. nee preclude himself not only
from coming to the Court for an injunction, but from obtain-
ing damages (e).

^^3- Delay, though it may not amount to proof of aoqaiescenoe.

may be sufficient to disentitle a man to the summary inter'
ference of the Court by interlocutory injunction (/). But
delay in taking proceedings is not so material whilst matters

128; 28 L. J. rh. 4T:J ; WtMrm v.
M'Dermiilt, 2 Ch. 72 ; 'M L. J. Ch.
190; .llt.-den. V. (WiKin'tion </
Uni.far, 17 W. R. 10S8: and see
Ki,i<jhl V. Himmond; (18a6) 1 Ch.
65.J ; (1896) 2 Ch. 2M ; 65 L. J.
C1». 583 ; OAonus v. BradUy, (1!U)3)
2 Ch. 446, 487; 73 L. J. C?-.
49, 31.

(. ) Johrurm V. Wyatt, 2 De O. J.
* .S. 18, 2o: ii \j. J. Ch. -.m :

<'hilil V. Jkmyhui, 5 Do (}. A[. & (>.
7;f9. 741; 104 R. B. 2ti2.

(li) a Beav. 233 ; 59 B. R.
486.

(f) Keltty V. Dodd, 82 L, J. Ch.
34 ; Sayeri y. 860. D. 106 ;

54 L. J. Ch. 1

(/) AU,.Otn. r. SkeJfiddGat Co.,
3 De O. M. 4 O. ;«)4 ; 22 L. J. Ch.
811; eSB. E. 151 ; Great Wettem
n»away Co. V. Oxford, Worreitter,
elf., naUmni Co., 3 De O. M. 4 O.
■ill; 98 K. R. 175; jfVjre v.
ll'tiniVa Canal Co.., 3 De G. & J.
212. 230; 28 L. J. Ch. 153; 121
I!. R. 80; OauHt F^ntg, g

' 1' 42L. J.Ch.iaa; Att..a«,.
V. South atafrndskin ITolmwnb,
(I90B) 26 r. L. B. 406.

BT INJUNCTION PBNMNO TRTAL OF THE BIGHT.

rmmin in Mfatu quo (g). Moreover, it seema that niM« delay oim^ III.
IB not matorisl wh«r« an injanotion ia aou^t in aid of • l«fal —

right, and that accordingly mere lapse of time will not be a
bar to the granting of an injunction at the trial, unless it
woald be a bar to the legal ri^t (A). Mere aequieaeenee,"

said Lord Cranworth, in Rochdale Canal Co. v. King (i), " (if
by acquiescence is to be understood only the abstaining from
legal proeeedings) is unimportant. Where one party invades
the right of another, that other does not in general deprive
himself of the right of seeking redress merely because ho
remains passive, unless indeed he continues inactive so long as
to bring the case within the Statute of Limitations " (k).

Delay is a circumstance which may be taken into considera- Actiom hy
tion by the Court in determining whether to grant an injunc- tklwiL™*''
ti<Mi, on an applioatim by the Attoroey-Qmenl on behalf of
the public (I).

The Court, upon the application for an interlocutory injunc- Coune of the
Won in support of a legal right, w ill deal with the injunction ^uTtl", i^^^"'
upm the evidence before it, and will confine itself afarietiy to'
the immediate object sought, and as far us possible abstain
from prejudging the question in the cause (nt). If a fair
primd faoU eaae be made oot, aad tiie eaae ia free from objee-

(./) Hale V. AhMt, 8 Jur. N. S. (1908) 2 K. K p. 169; 74 L. J.

988, 989; ArchMl v. Scillj,, 9 K. K 803; Att.-<hn.r. M«l€aifmd

II. L. C. p. 388. Onig, (1807) 2 Ch. pp. M, M, 19

(A) Fullwaod v. FMwcod, » 0. L. J. Ck. Sfi9 ; (i«v»ned <m i^pttl

D. 178 : 47 L. J. CIl 4W ; ArrMoU on ■Bcthu- point, (1908) 1 Ch. 327 ;

V. Aw//y, 9 H. L. C. 38;t ; Rmvland 77 L. J. Ch. 261 ) ; .,4 «. . (ten. v. Grand

V. Mitthta, 74 L. T. 63; Hngg y. Junrtion Canal Co., (190«) 2('h. p.

Beett, 18 Eq. 444; kcv Jonu y. 518; 78 L. J, Oh. (j-sl ; Att. Gni.y.

Llanrwtt I'rban CouHcil, (1911) 1 South StafonMirc lyattraorlet Co.

Ch. p. 311 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 154. (1909) 28 T. L. R. 4(»H ; Att..(lm. v."

(i) 2 Sim. N. S. 89 ; 22 L. J. Ch. Birmingham, Tamt, efc., DratMige

6<M. 606 ; 43 L. J. Ch. "05. Hoard, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 63; 79 L. J.

(A) London, Ckatliam and Dottr Ch. p. 137 ; (1912) A. a 788, 812; 88

RaUwag Co. t. BM, 47 L. T. 416; L. J. Ch. 45. Sm A1t.-a*n. v. &mM

DhIm of Ifartktmitrland v. Bote. BlaJM$kin Waterwork$ Co.,tuj>ra,

man, M L. T. 773; ArehMd t. m to delay in oaaea of uttni tnret.
8cuU}i,ntpru. [m) Skiin,er$' Co. v. Iiiih Svcirti/,

(0 AU.-Oen. v. Wimbledon Uoute 1 M. & C. 162, 164 ; 64 B. E. 166 ;

E»tate Co., (191 I) 2 Ch. p. 42; 73 Wvoiihrulye \. Bellamy, (1911) 1 Ch.

L. J. Ch. p. 595 ; AU.-Oeii. v. Scott, p. 338 ; 80 L. J. Ch. p. 272.

26 PBOTECTION OP LEGAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY

c**i>- ni- tions of an equitable consideration, sereral courses are open

— to the Court (n). Which of these courses will he adopted is

always a matter for the discretion of the Court, but, in the
absence of special circumstances, the leading principle which
is the rule of the Court and limits its disci etion is, that only
such a restraint shall be imposed as may stop the mischief
complained of, and keep the property in its actual condition
until the hearing (o). If the case, ns ninde out, is plain and
free from doubt, the Court would, even before the Judicature
Acts, in the exercise of its discretion, determine the question,
and grant an injunction without putting the parties to the
expense and delay of requiring the plaintiff to establish his
title at law (/>) ; but the case had to be very clear for the Court
to adopt this course (q). If the defendant disputed the legal
title of the plaintiff or denied the fact of its violation, the Court
would seldom, however clear the case might in its opinion be,
grant an injunction without putting the plaintiff to establish
his legal right (r).

In doubtful cases where the question .-s to the legal right
is one on which the Court is not prepared to pass an opinion,
or the legal right being admitted the fact of its violaticm
is denied, the course of the Court is either to grant the
injtmction pending the trial of th« legal right, or to order
the motion to stMid orer until the legal right has been
tried (<). In determining which of these two altematlTes

(n) Baetm v. Jvntt, 4 IC. ft 0. 438, R. R. 195 ; EtuUm t. Firth, 1 H. ft

437 ; 48 E. E. 143. M. 573.

(o) lUakemore v. (Hamnrgiinshire (r) Ilarnn y. Jnnet, i}S.. &C.433 ;

RaUumy Co., 1 M. * K. 154 ; 2 48 R. B. 143 ; Norton v. NirhdU, 4

li. J. (N. a) Ch. 95 ; 36 B. E. 289 ; K. & J. 475, 478 ; 116 B. E. 416 ;

Lenty * Co. v. Callingham atid Mayor of Cardiff v. Cardiff Water-

Thompim, (1908) 1 K. B. p. M; ti>orib(Co.,4DeO.&J.5M; miLB.

77 L. J. K. B. p. 67 ; Jone$ r. 409 ; Harman t. Jonti, Cr. ft Fh.

Paraya ffM»ier Co.. (1911) 1 K. B. 301.

p. 458 : 80 L. J. K H. p. 156. (») BramwtH v. Holcmh, 3 M. &

{ ji) Bwo), V. ./<.n^«, tiipra ; l\itlK V. 737, 739 ; 46 R. B. 378 ; A'./r/ of

V. r.ev',, '.' Drow. •J7'-' ; KK) B R. v. ni<ha<f,.\ M. & K. 169;

131; (hai-elfi v. Ilnrnanl, IS Kq. 3 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. H5; 41 B. B.

518, 523; 43 I.. .1. Ch. 659. 40; lm)>erlal 'ln>! <'n. v. Ilrnailhrnf,

(q) Motley V. Itownmaii. A }A.&V. 7 H. L. C. p. 612; 29 L. J. Ch.

p, 17 ; « L. J. (N, a) Oh. 308 ; 4* 377 ; ltd B. B. 396.

BY INJUNCTION PENDING TRIAL OF THE BIGHT.

27

it shall ftdopt, the Court is governed by the consideration as to oiwp- m.

tho comparative mischief or inconvenience to the parties which

may arise from granting or withholding the injunction (<), ^JJ^^L
and will take care so to frame its order as not to deprive either
party of the benefit he is entitled to, if in the event it turns
out that the party in whoso favour the order is made shall be in
the wrong (m). In doubtful cases, if it appears, upon the
balance of convenience and inconvenience, that greater
damage would arise to the defendant by granting the injunc-
tion in the event of its turning out afterwards to have been
wrongly granted, than to the plaintiff from withholding it in
the event of the legal right proving to be in his favour, the
injunction will not be granted, but the motion will be ordered
to stand over until the hearing. If, on the other hand, it
appear that greater damage would arise to the plaintiff by
withholding the injunction, in the event of the legal right
proving to be in his favour, than to the defendant by granting
the injunction, in the event of the injunction proving after-
wards to have been wrongly granted, the injunction will
issue (x). The burden lies upon the plaintiff, as the person
applying for the injunction, of showing that his inconvenience
exceeds that of the defendant. He must make out a case of a
comparative inconvenience entitling him to the interference
of the Court (y).

(<) Hdcon V. Janen, 4 M. & C. 433, Birmimjliam, Hailway Co., 3M. & C.

43(i; 48 E. E. ; Hilton v. Lord 784, 799; 8 L. J. (N. S.) C'h. 75;

Granville, Cr. & Ph. 283, 297 ; 10 4d R. R. 393 ; Hilton Lord Chan-

L. J. Ch. 398; M R. B. S97; Wfe, Cr. ftfli.p. 297; lOL. J. Oh.

Munror WiiM>thoe,tle.,Raatoaif(U>., 398 ; 64 B. R. 297 ; Flimfim v.

4 De O. J. * S. p. 738 ; Elr^hitit BpHler, 4 0. D. 286 ; Elwe* v.

V. Spencer, 2 Mac. * O. p. 50; 86 Paijnt, 12 C. T). 468; 48 L. J. Ch.

B. R. 16; Carmichael v. Evam, 831; Mitchell v. Henry. 15 C. D.

(19(M) 1 Ch. 492,493 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 191; Seusoii v. iVnt/fr, 27

p. 333 ; Arnolt v. Whitby District C. D. 43; Carmichail v. EvaM,

Council, (1909) 73 J. P. 64 ; Crisp (1904) 1 Ch. 492 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 333;

V. Holdm, (1910) 34 S. J. 784. Arnolt v. WhUby District Council,

[n) K„st l.micashite Hailway Co. (1909) 73 J. P. 64 ; Ori^r. HoUm,

V. Hatltrsley, 8 Ha. 93, 94 ; B. R. (1910) 64 S. J. 784.
216; see Pulatt Thtatrts Co. r. (g) ChilHr. DonglaM, 5 DaQ.U.

Clen>y, ( 1 909) 26 T. T,. B. 28. ft O. 741 , 742 ; 104 B. B. 382.

(x) (ireenlialyh v. Mnnthmttr ami

28

PROTECTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY

<^^in. In balancing the comparative convenience or inconvenience

'- — 'roni granting or withholding an injunction, the Court will

take into ronsideration what means it has of putting the party
who may be ultimately successful in the jxwition he would
have stood if his legal rightvs had not been interfered with (z).
Interlocutory In a caso where one of two defendants in an action for

injunction -at • . .

ancillary to

specinc performance of an agreement for a lease was an

relief at the trial, jnfant, the Court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction
to restrain the defendants from leasing the property to %
third party as the plaintiff was not entitled to specific per-
formance against both defendants (a).

TermB imposed The Court may often by imposing tenns on one party, as

on defendant as , .. . , •.■ ,. ,

the conditioji of the Condition of either granting or withholding the injunction,
"n^uMtSJi?'''" secure the other party from damage in ihe event of his proving
ultimately to have the legal right. If the Court feels that it
can by imposing terms on the defendant secure the plaintiff,
in the event of the legal right being determined in his favour,
against damage from what may he done by the defendant in
the meantime, and the defendant is willing to accede to the
terms required by the Court, an injunction will not issue (6).
The terms imposed on the defendant as the condition of with-
holding the injunction vary with the circumstances and the
exigencies of the case. The defendant may be required to do
such acts, or execute such works, or to remove any works, or
otherwise deal with the same as the Court shall direct (c), or

(«) Stttuettr T. Fmtfr, Cr. & Ph. 4 De O. J. & S. 286 ; Klwet v. Pa,/ne,

302; M R. R. 307; Bigby v. Oreat 12 C. 1). 470; 48 L. J. Ch. 831 ;

Wenffrn Railii-a>i Co., 2 Ph. 44 ; 15 Mitrhdl v. //r«n/, 15 C. D. 191 ;

I,. J. Ch. 2t)6; 78 R. R. 12; East Wall v. Lmitlmi A'teh (hrptratiim,

Laiira^hire Itnihr,,,/ C„. v. Haittriley, (18!»8) 2 Ch. 469 ; 67 I,. J. Ch. 596 ;

S Ha. p. 04 ; 86 R. R. 215 ; Arnatt Smith v. Biuter, (1900) 2 Ch. 13$,

V. mM!f DiOrirt Council, (1909) 73 M8 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 442.
J- P- 8*. (f) Att.-aeii. r. Manehtiler and

(o) Lumleif v. Raxtnimfl, (1898) Lttd$ Sailway Co., I Ra. Cti. 436;

1 Q. H. 683 ; 64 L. J. a B. 441. Foni v. Gye, 6 W. H. 2;to ; fVater-

CO Biyh;/ v. ffrmt WeOern Rail- loiv v. Jtavoii, Ij. K. 2 Kq. 514 ;

MJO.V C,,., 2 Ph. 4J 50 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 35 I.. J. Ch. (M;i ; l!nrkrr v. Smth

266; 78 R. E. 12: Cromfnnl am/ Slnffonltliiri Uni/nni/, •> l)e O. & S.

liii/h I'lah l/ai/ira;/ ('<,. v. ««/,■. 55; 7!»R. R. 125; Sinitli v. llaxlrr,

imrt, etc.. Railway Co., ll>e O. & J. (1900) 2 Ch. p. 148 ; 69 L. J. Ch!

326 ; 118 B. B. 118 ; Lam v. /hmm, p. 442.

BY INJUNCTION PENDING TEIAL OF THE RIGHT.

29

to enter into an undertaking to refrain from doing in the Chap. iii.
meantime the acts complained of (d), or to abide by any order ^ ^-
the Court may make as to damages or otherwise, in the event
of the legal right being determined in favour of the plain-
tiff (e). If the permission to do the act complained of involves
the making of profits, the defendant will be required to keep
an account of all profits made pending the trial of the
rigl't (/) ; and may also be required to pay such a sum by way
of damages (in the event of the plaintiff's rij^t being estab-
lished) as the Coui t may direct (g).

Where an injunction is withheld upon the ctmdition of
the defendant entering into an undertaking aa to terms, the
Court may make it a part of the order that if default is made
in complying with the order the injunction shall issue (h).

As on the one hand the Court may in doubtful cases, as a Term. impoMd
condition of withholding an injunction, require the defendant condition rf*"
to enter into terms, so on the other hand it will, as a condition k^"""*
of granting an injunction, require the plaintiff to enter into
an undertaking as to damiges in the event of the right at
law being determined in favour of the defendant, and the
injunction proving to have been wrongly granted (»). The
undertaking was formerly required only in cases when the
application was ex parte, but the present practice is to re-
quire the undertaking aa well where the motion is on notice
as where it is ex parte (k). The Court, however, has no power

(rf) darkey. Clarke, 13 W. E. 133. 266 ; 78 E. B. 12.

(e) Jonet v. Oreat Western Rail- {h) Projirietort of Nartham Bridgt

ii-ay Co., 1 Ea. Ca. 685 ; MrSeill v. and Roadt v, Londonand Southamp.

Wiliiami, 11 Jur. 344 ; Ford v. Qye, Um Railway Co., 9 L. J. Ch. 277 ;

6 W. B. 235. 1 Ba. C«. 603; Spmeir y. Lemim

{/) BramwMr.Hak€mi,SyLit ami Birmingham aaUway Co., 1
C. 737 ; 4A B. B. 378; Bi^ y. Ba. Ca. 109; AU.-Oen. t. Eattem
Qrtat WmlUm Bailivay Co., 2 Ph. Railwayt Co., 3 Ea. Ca. 337.
44; 15L. J. Ch.266 ; 78E.E. 12; (•) Chaj^ll v. Duvidaon, 8 De
Cory v. Yarmouth and Xoru-icli O. M. & G. 1 ; (/ra/itim v. Camp-
Railway Co., 3 Ha. 603; 64 E. E. iell, 7 C. 1). 490 ; 47 L. J. Ch.
435 ; Klwes v. Payne, 12 C. D. 693 ; Practice Note, (1904) W. N.
470; 48 L. J. Ch. 831; V. 203, 208; Oberrheiniiche Mttal-
Ilenry, 15 C. D. 191. werke Co. v. Cocki, (1906) W. N. 137.

(y) Bigby v. Great Weibm Bail- (*) SmUk ?. Day, 21 Q D. p. 434 :

iwy C^, 8Hi.44,M; 1«L.J.C^ CAo^f v. ZtevMMN, 8 De O. IC ft

80

PROTECTION OP LEGAL RIGH"'S TO PROPEBTY

Chap. III.
8«ct. 1.

Teimt in
cn plaintiff t
condition of
gnnting an
iqjaiMUcn.

to compel a pai1y applying for an injunction to give aa
undertaking as to damages, but if the applicant refuses to
give the undertaking in a case in which the Court considers
it ought to be given, the order for an injunction will not be
made, or if pronounced will not be drawn up (I). According
to the practice in the Chancery Division, when i lefendant
offers an undertaking which is accepted by the plaintiff in
lieu of an injunction, a cross undertaking in damages by
the plaintiff will be inserted in the order unless the contrary
is agreed and expressed at the time (m).

Where the question a* issue has reference to the payment
of money {e.g., where a mortgagor seeks t^ restrain his mort-
gagee from selling (n), or where a person seeks to restrain a
company from forfeiting his shares for non-payment of
calls (o), or where a tenant seeks to restrain a distress (p)),
the Court may, as a condition of granting an injunction,
require the money to be paid into Court.

The Court may, on granting an inju.iction, put the plaintiff
on an undertaking to prosecute the action with due dili-

O. I ; 114 B. B. 1 : Tuck j. Silver,
John. 218 ; mB.B.82; Feniierv.
Wibon, (1893) 2 Oh. 668 ; 62 L. J.
Ch. 984 ; AU.-Oen. T. AOanif BoU,
(1896) 2 Ch. 699 ; 65 L. J. Ch.
885; Howard v. Preu PritUen Co.,
(1905) 74 L. J. Ch. 103, 104. In
Ingram v. Tuck, cited in note to
riici- V. Sili er, the defendant being
dearly guilty ol fraud, the Vice-
Che ucellor granted an injunction
without requiring the plaintiff to
give ma nnderteldng 'g to damages.
See farther Chsp. XXIL, sects. 1
and 5, pott.

(/) Tutkfr V. New Brnntv'ick

Trwliwj Co., 44 C. D. 249, 252; 59
L. J. Ch. 561, 862; Alt. -(leu. v.
Alhuiy IMfl Co., Howard v. I'rets

hriniera Co., aiijira.
(ni) See Pr. Note, (1904) W. N.

203, 208 ; Oberrheinuche Melal-

ieerke Co. v. Cock», (1906) W. N.

127. Bawluuim of tJM Judcw of

the C. D., in consequence of the
decision of the C. A. in Howard v.
Preu Printer* Co., $upra (k), that
thwe is no general practice that a
croM nnctortaking in damages by
the plaintiff ia to be imi^ied.

(n) Whitworth v. Shodet, 20 L. J.
Ch. 105 ; Mat leod v. Jouee, 24 C. D.
289; 63 L. J. Ch. 149; Warner y.
Jacob, 20 C. D. p. H ; 51 L. J. Ch.
642.

(o) Lamb y. Hi.inbaa Rubber Co.,
(1908) 1 Ch. 846 ; 77 L. J. "^h. 386 ;
Jontt Paca^ia Rubber Co. (1911)
1 K. B. 4M: 80 L. J. K. B.
157.

( p) Shaw lord Jertey, 4 C. P.
D. 12.), 359, affirming 48 L. J. C. P.
308; Carttr y. Salmon, 43 L. T.
490 ; Walth v. Lmudale, 21 C. D.
9; 62 L. J. Ch. 2; see Lewi* t.
Mker, (1906) 1 Ch. p. 47 ; 74 L. J.
Ch. 39.

BY INJUNCTION PENDING TBIAL OF THE BIGHT.

81

gence (qr). The Court may also, upcm granting or refosing oh.p.iii.
an injunction, impose terms as to admissions being made at —

the trial (r).

In granting an interlocutory injunction at the instance of ITidMUking u

the Attoiney-Genenil, suing on behalf of the Crown, the J^tlJU^^
Court will not require an undertaking as to damages to be
given (»).

Instead of issuing the injunction in the flrst instance, the interim rntnia.
.prohibition of the Court is often issued and conveyed in the
shape merely of an interim rpstraining order, by which the
defendant is restrained until after a particular day named,
liberty being given to the plaintiff to serve notice of motion
for an injunction for that day (0-

If the plaintiff has not, in the opinion of the Court, laid a DUmual of

sufficient foundation for his action, it will be dismissed. The ?f*'™ """T
. Court cu fom

Court will not order the motion to stand over or retain an ^ftTounblt
acticm, unless it has a favourable opinion on tiie merits of the tSeMtttH.*"

case (tt). Nor will the Court, unless the circumstances of the
case are such as to lead it to form an opinion as to the legality
of the act complained of , or to pat the case into a coarse of
immediate investigation, allow the motion to stand over till
the purpose has been so far executed as that its character may
be judged of, but will refuse the motion (i). An injunction
will not be granted on the principle that it will do no
harm to the defendwt, if he has not dcme the act ocmpluned
of (y).

The mere fact that an appeal may be pending ia not a ii^wMiiM

ground for refusing an injunction to restrain the violation Of »"■'"■••»••'•

(g) Newion r. Pender, 27 C. D. XXII., sects. 1 and fi.
43, 63; Palace Thtatrt* Co. (<) See poM, Chap. XXII., •. 1.

CZnuy, (1910) 26 T. L. B. 38. («) rMb v. Hwmt. Jeha. 372.

(r) HiUt» T. Lard GranviUt, Or. 381 ; 12S B. B. 157 ; Ware t.
ft Ph. 283 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 398; M Segent't Canal Co., 3 De O. & J.
B. B. 297; 8wtel v. Cater, M Sim. p. 231; 28 L. J. Ch. 153; 121 B.
672 ; 54 K. E. 439 ; /)/c/tem v. Iff, E. 80.

H Jut. 186 ; Bohn v. Bogue, 10 Jur. (x) Maine* v. Taylor, 2 Ph. 209 ;
420. 78 B. B. 71 ; Att.-Om. v. Corpora-

it) Att.-Otn. V. Albany Hotel Co., titrn of Manchester, (1893) 2 Ch. p.
(1896) 2 Ch. 696 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 91 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 463.
886 ; and Me further, M to onder- (y) Co fin v. Oojfin, Jae. p. 72 ;
tkkinga for damegee, po< CSkap. 29 B. B. 1.

82

Ohap. III.
8Mt. I.

PROTECTION OF LEGAL BIGHTS TO PilOPERTt

a legal right, though it may influence the decision of the
. Court as to the date ut which the injunction should com-
mence (a). Mere inconvenience and annoyance is not enough
to induce the Court to take away from the aueceB^ful party
the benefit of liia decree (a). The Court may, however, sus-
pend the operation of the injunction for a given time if there
is danger of irreparahle mischief being done in the meantime,
or to enable the defendant to appeal (b) ; and the Court p- v,
on a proper case being made out, restrain by injunctir
dealings with a fund pending an appeal to the Ho of
Lords, although the Court has decided against the title of
the plaintiff and dismissed the action (c). The jurisdiction,
however, will be exercised with care and so as not to en-
courage any orn' to present an appeal for the purpose of
delay {d).

8WI.2.

Uj.

BBCnOK 2. — PBBPKTCAL INJ0N0TI0N8— MANDATOBt IMJOHO-

Tioirs.

After the establishment of his legal right and of the fact
of its violation, a plaintiff is in general entitled as of course
to a perpetual injunction to prevent the recurrence of the
wrong, unless there be smnething special in the circumstances

of the case, such as laches, or where the interference with the
plaintiff's right is trivial (e). So also where a public body

(2) Att.-Qen. v. Bradford Canal
Co., L. E. 2 Eq. 71 ; 36 L. J. Ch.
619; Perm v. Bibhy, L. R. 3 Eq.
308; see Att.-Gtn. v. Birmingham,
Time, etc., IMrict Board, (1910) 1
Ch. p. 62 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ; (1912)
A. 0. 788; 82 L. J. Ch. 48;
Sekwtckr y. Worthing Om, Light
artd Coke Co., (1912) 81 L. J. Ch. 102.

(a) Wal/ord \.W.,3 Ch. 814.

(6) Wal/aril v. II'., 3 Ch. 812, 814 ;
Andrews v. A bertiflrry VrhanCuuni il,
(1911) 2 fh. p. 414 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 742 ; Schuieder v. Worthing Oa$,
Light and Out* Co., (1912) 81 L. J.
Ch. 102.

(e) Folini y. Oroy, 13 0. 1>. 438 ;

Wilson V. Church, 12 C. D. 454 ; 28
W. E. 284.

(rJ) PMniv. Graij,iupra,4i6,4il.

(e) Imperial Oat Co. v. Broadhent,
7 H. L. C. 612 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377 ;
115 E. E. 295 ; and see Llandudno
DUMct Council t. Wood», (1899) 2
Ch. 706 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 623; Bhtiftr
Y. atyof London ElteMe Co., (188S)
lCh.p.314; 64L.jr.C9u216,8Se;
Jordeton v. Hittton, tie., Oai Co.,
(1899) 2 Ch. 238; 68 L. J. Ch. 457,
476 ; Cowprry. Laidler, (1903) 2 Ch.
337, 341 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 580 ; ColU
V. Honu and Colonial Stores, (1904)
A. C. 212 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 802 ; Brhrent
T. A'^tenb. (1906) 3 Ol 614; 74

PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.

88

it c:r. needing tta powwrs, or flommitting an offence against a ni.

8tatu(j, the Attorney-General is, as a general rule, entitled
to an injunction, although not as a matter of right in all
cireoButances, for the Court has a discretion (/).

The jurisdiction to grant a parpetoal injunction la foooded
on the equity of relieving a party from the necessity of
bringing action after action at law for every violation of a
eomiwm law right, and of finally quieting the right, after a
case has received such full decision as entitles a peraon to
be protected against further trials of the right (g).

A perpetual injunction should not howerer be granted to
protect a right having only a limited duration ; in such a case
the injunction should be limited to the period of the plain-
tiff's interest in the subject-matter of the action (A).

Where a defendant has given an undertaking to the Court DeciMmtion of
not to infringe the plaintiff's rights, and there is no proba- [j.^JppTj'^or u'*'
bility that the wrongful act will be repeated, the Court may, "joMt'o"-
instead of granting an immediate Injonetkm, make a deelara-
ticm of the plaintiff's rq^ts, and him libwty to ap^y

Jj. J. Ch. 615; Marnott v, East
(irinitead Oat Company, 1
Ch. 70, 79 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 141 ; Alt.-
Oen. T. Birmingham, Tumt,
Irict Drainage Board, {1911)
60; 79 L. J. Ch. 143; ■ ■.
ArckOta* v. KmMA, (IBK ,
L. T. m; M T. L. B. 4^3; md
■ee Wtalherbif A Co. v. Inttrn<ttioiuU
Iloru Agency Co., (1910) 2 Ch. p.
305 ; "9 L. J . Ch. p. 613 ; Slazmger
V. S/Ming. (1910) 1 Ch. 257; "9
L.J Ch. 122. As to the right to an
injunction to reetrain the breach of
a negative covenant though the
damage be slight, see Dehtrtg v.
Allman, 3 A. C. 710, 720; Mc-
Eaeham r. Cbtton, (1002) A. 0. p.
107; 71 L. J. P. 0. p. 21 ; Formby
V. Barker, (1903) 2 Ch. p. 864 ; 72
L. J. Ch. p. 721 ; EUiiton v. Beacher,
(1908) 2 Ch. p, 395 ; 79 L. J. Ch.
p. 628; Att.-Oen. v. ]VMham»tow
Urban Council, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 331 ;

K.I. 8

70 L. J. Ch. p. 280; and pmt.

Chap. X.

(/) Att-Oen. T. WimUtdoa Home
KOatt Co., (1004) 9 34, 42 ; 73
J. Ch. MS. M6; An,-ant. t.
^ffoid Jutidion Canal Co , (1909) 2
Ch. MS ; 78L. J. Ch. 681 : Att-Oen.
V. Birmingham, Tame, etc.. Drainage
Board, (1910) 1 Ch. 53; 79 L. J.
Ch. 139 ; (1912) A. C. 788, 704,
812 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 45.

(g) Imperial Gas Co. v. BrvaJbent,
7 H. L. C. 612 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377 ;
115 B. B. 295; Lowndet y. BMt,
33 L. J. Ch. 461; Hanhmry v.
Llat^frtclila Urban Council, (1911)
75 J. P. p. 306 ; 0 L. G. B.
p. 36«.

(A) Savory v. Oyptican Oil Co.,
(1904) 48 Sol. J. 673; Co/well v.
St. Pancra* Borough Council, (1904)
1 Ch. 707, 712; 73 L. J. Ch.
27S.

84

PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.

Cbap. Ill,

at iajaaetion.

for an injunction, in tha event of the defendant repeating
the offence, or threatening to disturb the plaintiff's rights (i).

The fact that trifling or merely nominal damages may have
been recovered at law (;'), or that the damage is amall (t),

is not per se a Hufficicnt pround for refusing to gnint a per-
petual injunction, but it if a circumstance which the Court
will take into consideration in determining whether to exer-
cise its jurisdiction (I). The Court will in gpnoial Juivo
regard not only to the dry strict rightn of the plaintiff and
defendant, but also to the surrounding circumstances (wi),
and the conduct of the parties (n). The considerati(m of the
balance of convenience and inconvonirnce in granting or with-
holding the injunction is not neglected by the Court. If
in lieu granting the injunction would have the effect of inflict-
ing serious damage upon the defendant without ) toring or
tending to restore the plaintiff to the position in which he
originally stood, or doing him any real practical good (o) ; or
if the mischief complained of is trivial (p), or can be pro-
I)erly, fully, and adequately compensated by a pecuniary

(i) Wikox V. steel, (1904) 1 Ch.
222, 223 ; "3 L. J. Ch. p. 220 ;
Brigg v. Thornton, (1904) 1 Ch. p.
394 ; 73 L. J. Cb. p. 306; Att-
Oen. v. Birmiiiiiham, Tame, etc.,
Drainmie Board, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 62 ;
79 L. J. Ch. p. 144; Uanhury v.
Llem/rechla Urlan CotmcH.tuprafg).

(j) Jtoekdale Cmol Co. v. Ki»s. 8
Sim. N. 8. 78, 86 ; 20 L. J. C*.
675; 89 E. B. 211.

(A) Marriott v. East OrMead
aa$ Co., (1909) 1 Ch. 70; 78 L. J.
Ch. 141.

(/) Wood V. SutcUffe, 2 Sim.
N. 8. p. 165 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 253 ;
8Mftr V. City of London Electric
Co., (1895) 1 Ch. 314 ; M li. J. Ch.
226; and Cowperx. Laidler, (1903)
2 Ch. 341 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 880; A'.He
V. Julhj, (1905) 1 Ch. 503, 504;
miey V. Halifax CorporeUitm, (1907)
97 L. T, 27H.

(m) Wooil V. Sutrliffe, tupra ;
NationcU Provincial Co. v. Prudential

Atturance Co., 6 C. D. p. 769 ; 46
L.J.Ch.p. 875 ; Warwick and Birm-
inyham Canal Co. v. Burnnm, (1890)
63 L. T. 670; Llandudno Urban
Vouiml V. WooiU, (1899) 2 Ch. 705 ;
68 L. J. Ch. 623 ; Conner y. Laidler,
supra; Behrent v. Richardt, (1905)
2 Ch. 614 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 61S ; Har-
ringlon (Earl) Derby Corporatim,
(1905) 2 Ch. 220, 221 ; 74 L. J. Ch.
214. Soo f o«f , Chap. X., M to CMM
depending on contract.

(«) Kinc V. Ji'lly, iiipra ; Jonts\.
Earl Tankerville, (1909) 2 Ch. p.
446 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 676.

(r.) II'.,o<i V. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim.
N.S. 163. 168 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 283;
89 E. B. 262; RiUy v. Halifax
Corporatim, (1907) 97 L. T. 278.

(;i) Llandudno Dittrict Council r.
Woods, (1899) 2 Ch. 706 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 623 ; Behrent v. Richard; (1906)
2 Ch. 622 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 619 ; Engliih
V. Metropolitan Water Boar<i,( 1907)
1 K. B. p. 603 ; 76 r. r. K. B. p. 370.

Cbsp. III.
SmIS.

PERFBTUAL INJUNGTIONB.

sum (q), an injunction will not issue. If, on the other hand,
th.> (iefendunt ha.s covenanted that a partiealar thing shall not

be done (r), or the mischief compluincd of is of so muterial a
nature that it cannot be adequately compensated hr a pecu-
niary sum, .;nd granting an injanetion will restore or tend
to roHlor.' tlio parties to the |)osition in which they formerly
stood and have a right to «tund, it is the duty of the Court to
interfere by perpetual injunction, notwithstanding the serious
damage caused tliereby to the defendant (»).

If a considerable time must elapse to enable the parties to Fu.pMMto.rf
comply with an injunction, the Court will order that the '"j""****-
operation of the injunction ! e suspmded for a certain stated
period (0- Considerations of public u el fare also may justify
the suspension of un injunction upon terms («).

85

(7) nWv. S«<r/i/^2Siin.N. S.
KiO, 169 ; SMfer v. Citi/ of f.omlon
electric Lif/hting Co., (1894J 1 Ch.
^ 317 ; 64 L. J. Ch. p. 226; Ccwp$r
T. LauUtr, (1903; 2 Ch. p. 841 ; 72
L. J. Ch. p. WO ; ColU r. Homtmd
CoImM Storti. (1904) A. C. IBS,
IW ; 73 L. J. C h. p. 492 ; Kine v.
Jvlly, (1905) 1 Ch. 496; (19071
A. C. 1 ; 74 L. J. Cb. 183 ; 76 L. 3.
Ch. 1 (on appeal) ; Englith v. Metro-
politan Water Utiaril ,»Hpra{p) ; Riley
V. Hali/ar Corporation, tnjira (o).

(r) Doherty v. Allmau, 3 A. 0.
p. 720; McEaehamr. Oidtim,(l9Blt)
A. C. p. 107; Formbf r. Bariker,
(1903) 2 Ch. p. 6A4; 72 L. J. Ch.
p. 721 ; KllifUm y. Rtacher, (1908)
2 Ch. p. 395 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 628 ;
Att.-tlcn. V. Waltharrutvw Urban
Conucil, (1910) 1 Ch. p. ;j51 ; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 269.

(-i) U'o<„l V. Nittcliffe, iHi>ra{<i);
Imperial Gas Co. v. liroadhent, 7
II. L. C. 600 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377;
US B. B. 296; Tipping r. 8t.
/Wen* Smdting Co., 1 Ch. 66;
Shd/w r. City of London BleOric
ligkUng Co., (1898) 1 Ch. 287;
84 I* J. Ch. 216; Cowper r.

Laidltr, $Hpra(3): Kine r. Jolly,
(1906) 1 Ch. m, 496. «M; 74

L. J. Ch. 183; Alt. -a en. v. Bir-
mingham, Taine, etc.. Drainage
Board, (1!)10) 1 Ch. 48, 60; 79
L. J. Ch. 14;i; (1912) A. C. 788 : 82
L. J. Ch. 45.

{t) Att.-(fen. V. liradf^d Canal
Co., L. E. 2 Eq. 83, 84 ; 35 L. J.
v^h. 621; AtL-Oen. t. Wittmdtn
District CmncU, 12 T. L. B. 628 ;
Beinhardt y. Mtmkuti, 42 C. D.
»0; M L. jr. Ch. 789; Shelf ery.
City of London Electric Lighting
Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 388 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
788; Robrrtt y. Qwyrfrai District
Council. (1899) 2 Ch. 616 ; 68 L. J.

Ch. 759; hliwjton Vestry y. Homt$y
Urban Comicil, (1900) 1 Ch. 707;
Colwcll V. ,S7. Pancrat Bormgk

Council, (1904) 1 Ch. p. 713; 78

L. J. CL. 279; A«..atn. y. Favert.

ham Corporation (1908) 72 J. p.

404 ; AU.-Om. y. Cibb, (1909) 2 Ch!

279; 78 L. J. Ch. 628; Stancomby.

Trowbridge Urban Council, (1910)

2 Ch p. 191 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 619 ;

Att.-IU... V. Birmingham, T(ttJ,

For note (u) aee next page.

8—2

M

FERPETUAL mJUHOTIONB.

Chtp. III.

Seel. 2.

Aei|aieK«nc«.

lift* I
bj lb* AUonMj
OmNnL

The principles of the Court with respect to deity md

acquiescence applicable to the case of interlocutory injunc-
tions hold also in the case of applications for perpetual in-
junctions (r). But to justify the Court in refusing to inter-
fere at the hearing, there most be a stronger case of
acquiescence than is sufficient to a bar on the interlocutory
application (w). A man who, possessing a full knowledge of
his rights, has lain by and has by his condaet encouraged
others to expend moneys in contravention of the rights for
which he afterwards contends, cannot come to the Court for
relief by perpetual injunction, however clear his right or
whatever may be the ralue of the right, but must rest satisfied
with such damages ns a jury will give (x). A man may by
acquiescence not only preclude himself from being able to
derogate from a state of things which has been broa^t about
by his own conduct, but may even give the adverse party a
right to the interference of the Court in the event of his com-
plaining at law (y). So also, in the case of aetims by the
' Attorney-General on behalf of the public, delay is a circum-
stance which may be taken into consideration by the Court

rir., Diltrict lhaiuaife Doaril, (1910)
ICh. 48, 62; 79 L. J. Ch. 137, 144 ;
(1912) A. C. 7H8 ; N2 L. J. Ch. 45 ;
Jotm T. Llanrwat Urban Cuiincil,
(Wll) 1 Ch. 393, 411 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
154; a 0. (19U) 76 J. P. Jo. 243,
whflire an nodertaking in damagM
was required on a fnrthw ■a^en*
Bion; Att.-Om. v. Letee$ Corpora-
tiun, (1911) 2 Ch. .VH) ; 105 L. T. 701.

(k) Price'! I'uteut VaiiMe Co. v.
Lomlon Cuuntij Council, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 644 ; 78 L. J. Ch. p. 13. »eo
Att.-Oen. V. SoutK SitafforiUlire
Wotvworki Co. (1909), 28 T. L. B.
408, whera the injtinction wa« ma-
peoded, tk i defendMitt woe iwo-
moting a KU in Pariiamrat to
■eoure powwa to do the act com-
plained of.

(r) Seopp. 21— 25,anff, and^4«.-
Qtn, T. Chrand Junction Canal Co.,

(1909) 2 Ch. SW, 518 ; 78 Zi. J. Ch.

681, 685.

(«■) Johnii.n v. iri/a«, 2 De O.
J. & S. 18 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 394 ; o»««,
p. 18.

(jc) Dan* T. Spurrier, 7 Ve«. 231,
396 ; 6 B. B. 119; RutMaU Canal
Co. T. Kilts, 9 Sim. N. a 88 ; 16
Beav. 630 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 675 ; 89

B.B. 211; Wuody.8vklifft,i9sBi.
K. 8. 169 : 21 L. J. Ch. 333 ; 89
R. ». 2G2 ; Daviei v. .Sear, L. B. 7
Eq. 427; U8 L. J. Ch. 54.'i. See
dale V. .1 bbM, 8 Jur. N. S. 987 ;
Uedi (Duke of) v. Amhertt, 2 Th.
123; 15 L. J. Ch. 351 ; 78R.E. 47;
WUlmtU V. Barler, 15 C. D. 106,
106 ; Civil Strviee Inilrument Co. r.
Whiltman, (1899) 68 L. J. Ch. 484.

(y) Willianu y. Starl of Jtnty,
Cr. & Ph. 97 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 149 ; 54
B. B. 219.

PBBPETUAL IMJUMCnONB.

9t

•lotermining whether to grant an injunction, wbetlMr it

bo (in injunction against continuing to do something, or
whether it be in the form of u muiJatory injunction («). But
the Court will not act npon light gromide against the legal

rigiit of tile partiea. It rpquiros a clear and strong case to
leud the Court to deprive a party of his right at law to prevent
a particular a«t being done, or hii right to recover damages if
it be done. There must be fi aud or sL-h acquiescence as in
the view of the Court would make it \ fraud in him after-
wards to insist upon his legal right (a) ; and it seems that
?nere delay will not disentitle a plaintiff to an injunction in
aid of a legal right unless the claim to enforce the right is
barred by the Statutes of I^imitations (6).

A perpetual injunction will not, as a rule, without consent p«r,«tu.i i..
bu granted before the trial, but an injunction maj by eon- in^nliTMor.
sent be made perpetual on motion (c).

A man is not bound to apply by motion in the Ik-st instance.
He may obtain a perpetual injunction at the hearing, although
he has not applied for an injunction on interlocutory appli-
cation (d) ; and where a mandatory injunction is sought it is

(0 AH-Oen. r. WimiUim Hmm J. Oh. 473 ; 199 B. B. 471 ; Ayy v.

£ifa<« Co., (1904) 9 (%.p.49; 73 8mM,L.S. 18 Eq, 404; 43 L. J.

L. J. Ch. p. 596 ; An..aem. v. Satt. Ch. 70S ; Bmiih v. Smith, L. B. 20

(1906) 9 K. B. p. 169 ; 74 L. J. K. Eq. 603 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 630 ; 1\'illm<,ft

B. 803; Att.-Oen. v. Metcal/ and v. Barber, 15 C. D. 103; TV.x-for

Orelg, (1907) 2 Ch. pp. 34, 35 ; 76 v. Beimiu, 36 C. D. 710; 57 L. J.

Ii. J. Ch, 259 (reversed on appeal on Ch. 1 1 ; Civil Service Mutical

another iK)int), (1908) 1 Ch. 372; 77 Imtrument Co. v. W\it»m», C?**?)

Ii. J. Ch. 261; Att.-atn. v. Grand 68 L. J. Ch. 484.

JuiKtioti rami' Co., (1909) 2 Ch. p. (6) Fullwood y. F., 9 C. D. 17t;

618 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 686 : AU. Otn. v. 47 L. J. Ch. 469 ; ArckhM v. BaOlji,

SoHtk 8kff9rd$kir* WuUrworlu Co., 9 H. L. C. 383 ; LoitAm, Chalhim,

(1909) 26 T. L. B 408 ; AU.-Oen. v. and Dvver Railway Co. y. Bull, 47 L.

Birmingham, Tame, etc., Drainage T. 413,416; tee •Tbnet y. Llomrwtt

Board, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 53 ; 79 L. J. Vrlntn Council, (1911) 1 Ck 383,

Ch. p. 143 ; (1912) A. C. p. 812; 411 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 154.

■S2 L. J. Ch. 45; cf. Att.-On,. v. (<•) Day y. Snee, 3 V. & B. 170;

Suutli Staffordthirt Waterworkt Co., Morrell v. Pearson, 12 Beav. 284;

$uiira, aa to delay in ohms of mUra Atlatl t. Southampton Corporalion,

ft'rei. 16 C. D. p. 160; 60 L. J. Ch.

(a) Qerrard y. O'Beilly, 3 Dr. & p. 34.

W 433; 61 B. B. 97; fttNiart (<<} Aiomv. JbMi,4U.*C.436;

r. BoughtoH, 97 Bmv. 431 ; M L. 48 B. B. 143; Dwte v. MmtUU,

88

PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.

Cliap. III.
Aeeoaat.

CmU of Aetiun.

not unusual to wuit until the hearing before applying for the
injunction (e).

I f the act complained of involves the making of profits, the
account is limited to the profits actually made and the moneys
actually received by the wrongdoer. There can be no account
in respect of acts unattended with profit (/). The account is
of all profits actually made for six years prior to the bringing
of the action, but the account will not be so limited when the
defendant has been guilty of a wilful and secret trespass,
and the plaintiff has not been guilty of laches in not dis-
covering the wrongful acts of the defendant (g). An account
will not be granted if there has been great delay in bringing
the action (h).

In consequence of the difficulty of working out a decree for
an account of profits, such an account is not usually taken. A
reasonable compromise is generally found to be most for the
benefit of the parties (i). If the amount of profits for which
the defendant would have to account is small, the plaintiff
usually waives the account (k), and if the defendant submits,
the suit does not proceed to tl)i> hearing, but u decretal order
is made, giving effect to the agreement between the parties.
The plaintiff is entitled to discovery for the purposes of the
account (/).

Where a plaintiff comes to enforce a legal right and there
has been no neglect or misconduct on his part, the Court will
not as a general rule take away his right to costs (m). G^ere

Oale

1 Dr. & Sra. 560, 661
Abholt, S Jiir. N. S. 987.

(f) (Ja/ey. Ahhott, tnjira.

(/) Ctilhurn V. Siinmt, 2 Ha. 660 ;
12 L. J. Ch. 388; 62 E. E. 225;
Powell V. Aikin, 4 K. 4 J. 343, 351 ;
116 R. B. 358. See Mtutdedc v.
Biackwood, (1898) 1 Ch. 6S.

{g) Dean y. Thimite, 21 Beav.
623 ; lU E. E. 228 ; BMi Cval Co.
V. O$borne, (18i»9) A. C. 351 ; 68 L.
J. P. C. 49; (Ih/n V. Ilvirell, (1909)
1 Ch. 06(5, 679 ; 78 J. Ch. 391.

(/,) Croiihy v. l>rr!-y 'lai IJjht
Co., 4 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 25 ; 1 Webs.

119, 120 ; 41 E. R. 198 ; Parroit v.
Palmer, 3 M. & K. &i3 ; 41 E. E.
149; llarrUm v. Tat/lor, 11 Jnr.
N. S. 408.

(»■) Crossley v. Derby Oaa Liylit
Co., 3 M. & C. 428, 436; 4 L. J.
(N. S.)Ch. 25; 41E.E. 198.

(ft) See Fradella r. W^ler, 2 B.
ft M. 247 ; 34 S. B. 81.

(0 Saxhf/ V. Eatterbrook, L. B.
7 Ex. 207.

(in) Cooper v. Whittinyham, 15
C. D. 504 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 752, ;<er
Jersel, M.E. ; T'jnntiri V. Fortsttr,
24 C. D. 231; 52 L. J. Ch. 946;

PERPBTtJAL INJUNCTIONS.

89

may be misconduct of many sorts : there may be misconduct in ckap. m.

commencing the proceedings (n), or some miscarriage in the : —

procedure, or an oppressive or vexatious mode of conducting
the proceedings, or other misconduct connected with the
subject-matter of the action (o), which will induce the Court
to icfuse costs; but where there is nothing of the kind, the
plaintiff is as a general rule entitled to his costs (p).

Where the plaintiffs brought an action against the defen-
dant, who had innocently purchased in the market (at the
price of lis. &d.) 500 cigarettes which infringed the plain-
tiffs' trade mark, the Court granted an injunction but
refused to allow the plaintiffs their costs (q).

Actions for an injunction to restrain the violation of a legal Injunction
right do not usually go to the hearing. If the defendant offers unuiiy vrace«i
to submit to an injunction with costs, and to give the plaintiff ^
all the other relief to which he may be under the circum-
stances of the case entitled, and no question remains open to
he decided between the parties and no account is sought or the
account is waived, and the plaintiff nevertheless proceeds to
trial, the Court, though it may give the plaintiff the decree,
will not give him the costs of the subsequent prosecution of the
action up to the trial (r). The tender must include the costs

Writ V. (Iwyime, (1911) 2 Ch. 1, 14 ; public duty, when all opportunity

80 L. J. Ch. 5S«. But see Order of making amends has not been

LXV. r. 1 ; and the Judicature given to the defendant, see the

Act, luyo (53 & M Vict. c. 44), 8. S ; Public Authorities Proteotiun Act,

also Th» American Tob€uxo Co. v. 1893, s. 1 (d).

Qntri, (1892) 1 C9i. 630 ; 61 L. J. (o) Lipnum PuIvmm A Co.,

Ch. 242 ; Wnlttir T. fktinkopff, (1892) (1904) 91 L. T. 132 ; King diOo.r.

3 Ch. 489, SCO; 61 L. J. Ch. 621 ; Omrd * Co., (19M) 2 Ch. 7 ; 74

Flormct t. Mallinton, 6A L. T. 3M, L. J. Ch. 421 ; Editon-BtU Phono-

ao8; and tea fOd, Chap. XXII., graj-'ic Co. v. Smith. (190.<) 119

sett. 1. L. T. Jo. 106 ; Jiush v. Luca;

(h) riehlen v. Cor, (1906) 22 (1910) 1 Ch. p. 443; 79 L. J. Ch.

T. L. K. 41 1, a case of trivial tres- 174 ; Att.-Oen. v. Paruh, (1913) 67

ivass with uo intention on the part S. J. 625.

of the defendant to repeat it. As (p) See note (m), tupra.

to the powor oi the Oonrt to ordm (9} Amtrietut Tubacto Co. v.

a piaintifr to pay ooatis between Outtt, (1892) 1 Ot. 690; 61 L. J.

solicitor and client, of ptooeedingi Ch. 242.

instituted against a defendant act- (r) HfiUiniitou v. /V. 3 M- ft C.

ing in execution of a statutory or 338 ; 46 B. B. 271 ; Colbum v.

40

PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.

CUp. III.

Sect. 2.

Costs of action.

of the action up to the time when the tender is made («). If
the defendant does not offer to submit to the injunction and
pay all the costs up to that time (t), or if, although he offers to
submit to the injunction, he refuses to pay the costs, or to
give the plaintiff any of the other relief to which he is
entitled («), or imposes a condition which the plaintiff is not
bound to accept, e.;/., that the order should not be ndvortisfnl,
or that it should recite tlmt the defendant had submitted for
the sake of peace (»), the plaintiff is entitled to bring the
action to trial and will have the costs of the action.

A plaintiff who obtains on an interlocutory application the
relief which he seeks, should make an application to the defen-
dant to have the costs disposed of on motion. If he does not
do so, or if, on the application of the defendant to have the
costs disposed of on motion, he refuses to give his consent,
and no question remains open to be decided between the
parties, he will not be entitled to have the costs occasioned by
going on to trial. The question of costs cannot be determined
SirnfM, 2 Ha. Ml J 12 L. J. Ch. 231 ; fi3 L. J. Ch. 946 ; Witman

388; 62 B. B. 22A; Chappett r
David$oH, 2 K ft J. 123 ; 1 14 E. B.
1 ; yunn t. Albuquergue, 34 Bcav.
695 ; SontieiiKhtitt v. BiirnarJ, 07
li. T. 713 ; Darter v. Sleinkopff,
(1892) 3 Ch. 489; 61 L. J. Ch. 521 ;
Jenkiru) v. Hope, (1896) 1 Ch. 278 ;
65 L. J. Ch. 249; Slmenger y.
Spalding, (1910) 1 Ch. 361 ; 79
L. J. Ch. 12A; Ltv» Brot. v.
EquUablt Pknttn Soa'ety, (1912)
106 L. T. p. 474 ; 28 T. L. B. 294 ;
Brinimead v. Brintmtad, (1913) 29
T. L. E. 237.

(•) Fradella v. Wtller, 2 E. & M.
247 ; 34 E. B. 81 ; Oeary v. Norton,
1 De O. & a 12 ; 75 B. B. 1 ;
lliiriiesi V. Hill, 26 Ueav. 244 ; 28
L. J. Ch. 366; 122 E. B. 94; Mott
T. CoMttoH, 33 Bmt. 679; .AThim r.
Alh^qwrqitt, 34 Beav. 696 ; Jenkint
T. Hope, (1896) 1 Ch. 278 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 249; filaxrnijtr v, Spnlding. nipra.

(0 Upmann v. Forater, 24 C. D.

Oppenkeim, 27 C. D. 260 ; 54 L. J.
Ch. 66 ; Sonneiiscliein v. Barnard,
57 li. T. 713 ; Iltrmiiiyhaiii Didriit
Land Co. v. Ltmdou an i North
Wtttern Itailii ay Co., 57 L. T. 185 ;
Seldtaiii(/i r v. Tumtr, 63 L. T. 764.

(») Fradella v. Wdier, 2 B. ft M.
247; 34 B. B. 81 ; Geary t. Norton,
1 De G. ft 8. 18; 76 B. B. t;
CkofptU T. Davidson, 2K. & J. 123 ;
110 B. R 134 ; Burge»$ v. Hill, 26
Beav. 244 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 356; 122
E. B. 94; M' Andrew v. Bassett, 4
D. J. & S. 380 ; Sonnenachein v.
Barnard, Birmingham District Land
Co. V. London and North Western
Railway Co., Sehlesinger v. Turner,
supra; Fennessey y. Dojf and
Martin, 86 L. T. 161 ; Hat Munu-
/aetunnr Supply Co. T. Tamlin,
(1908) 23 B. P. C. 413.

(•) H*my Clay & Co. v. Qodfrty
Phm^ (1910) 87 B. P. C. 808.

PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS.

41

in this way without the consent of the parties, but the party
who refuses to consent must justify his refusal, and must
satisfy the Court that he is joatifled in bringing tiie sction on

to trial (x).

If both parties are in the wrong, the one claiming more
than he is entitled to claim anil the otiier offering le«8 than
he is bound to offer (ij), or the one succeeding as to part of
his claim and failing as to another part {z), no costs will be
given to either side, or the costs as to which one party has
failed will be taxed and set off against those in which he has
succeeded, and the balance of such costs only will be paid to
the »»arty entitled to such costs (a).

If the defendant has been to blame in the matter, tiie dis-
missal of the action will be without costs (&).

A bond fide offer from the defendant before action to give
the plaintiff all the relief to which he is entitled and which
he ultimately obtains by the action, may be a reason for
depriving the plaintiff of the costs (c).

Where a defendant offered to submit to a perpetual injunc-
tion to be obtained by the plaintiffs in chambers, but the
plaintiffs set the action down on motion for judgment, the
plaintiffs were only allowed such costs as they would have
properly incurred if they had proceeded by summons in
chambem {d).

{x) Morgan v. Oreat Eatttm
Railway ( ',<„ 1 II. & M. 78 ; Wilde
T. iVilde, 4 De O. F. & J. 348 ; Sou-
ntntchein v. Barnard, 67 L. T. 712.

(y) Molt T. OMMfcrn, 3!i Oeav.
oT8; Wood y. Saundtr; 10 Ch.
p. S86 ; afflrming 44 L. J. Ck. 514,
623 ; see AtU-Orii. v. Pari»k, (1913)
a: S. J. 625.

(z) RmM V. Watts, 2:> V. D. p.
577 ; M(K>re v. lifmutt, 1 R. P. C. 130.

(a) Bonrke v. Alexaiulra lIiM
Co., 26 W. B. 782 ; Nordtr^fM v.
Uardner, IB. P. C. 65; S«Uur» v.
Matlock BoardilfMmatk, 14 Q. B. D.
936; we Omeknatt r. Jmum, 11
0. U. S3; JTi^AI r. /Wwtf, i»

L. J. Ch. 120; Beinhardt t.
Mentatti, 42 C. D. p. 690; Jtnkin*
V. Jackton, (1891) 1 C%. 89; 60
L. J. Ch. 206; Tudd v. Nortk
Matttm BaUway Co., (1903) 88 L. T.
112. See Order LXV.r. 27, sub.r. 21.

(b) Wylam v. Clarkf, (1876)
W. N. 68; llarriion v. Ooode, 11
Eq. 354, 355; 40 L. J. Ch. 294,
301 ; Borthwick v. Kveniinj Post, 37
C. D. p. 465; 57 L. J. Ch. 410;
and see Snuggi v. Seyd, (1894)
W. N. 95; King y. GiUard, (1905)
2C1I.7: 74 L. J. Ch. 431.

(e) Jftl»i^ IVtt, 31C. *0.
S88; 46B.B.a71.

(<0 Tk* ImiMtBlmmDgtmg Co.

MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

If the costs of the action have been increased by an allega-
tion in the statement of claim irhich is mitrue, such increased
costs will have to be paid by the plaintiff, although his case
may be subatantiully established (e). But a wrongdoer cannot
be heard to complain that in proceedings hurriedly taken to
stop the wrong, the plaintiff has not accurately stated his title ;
in such a case the defendant will not be relieved from the pay-
ment of the extra costs occasioned by the plaintiff's mistake
as to his title (/).

Costs will be ordered to be taxed on the higher scale where
there are special grounds (g).

Mandatory Injunctions.

Although the Court of Chancery would not direct the per-
formance of a positive act tending to alter the existing state
of things (such as the removal of a work already executed),
nevertheless, by framing its -jrder in an indirect form, it
would compel a defendant to restore things to their former
condition, and so effectuate the p ime result as would be
obtained by ordering a positive act to be done. The ordei'
when framed in such a form is called a mandatory injunction.
The jurisdiction was formerly questioned (A), but its existence
must be admitted as beyond all doubt (i) ; and it is now settled
that the Court can frame the injunction in a positive form (k).

V. IHuhy, 57 L. J. Ch. 505 : 68
L. T. ; Allen v. Oakey, 62
L. T. 724.

(f) Pierce v. Franki, 15 L. J.
t h. 122; lloie T. LoflM, 47 L. J.
Ch. 57(J.

(/) Att..aeH. V. Tandint. 6 C. D.
750.

{g) Order LXV. r. 9 ; see Hudton
V. Otgtrhy, 32 W. R. 5d6 ; Turton
T. r., 42 C. D. 128, 149 ; Amervan
Braided Wire Co. v. Thomti.n, 44
C. D. 274, 296 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 425 ;
Davlet V. Daiiet, 66 L. J. Ch. 620 ;
Rivinuton v. (larden, (1901) 1 Ch.
561; 70 L. J. Ch. 282; Great
HM<«m Bailway Co, v. Caifalla

rial/ Co., (1909) i Ch. ill ; 101
L. T. a83.

(//) See Lane v. A'ewiligate, 10
Ves. 192; 7 E. B. 381 ; and /lUike-
more v. Olamoryanthire Railway
Co., 1 M. & K p. 184; 2 L. J.
(N. S.)Clt. 90; 36B.B.289.

(•) Htrvty T. SmM. 1 K. ft J.
392; 103 B. R. 141; Ftmith y.
Smith, 20 Eq. 501; 44 L. i. Ch.
630 ; Hermann Loog v. Bean, 26
C. D. p. 314; ML. J. C*.
p. 1128.

{k) Jarksvn v. Normaiily Brick
Co., (1899) 1 Ch. 438 ; 68 J. Ch.
407 ; Daviei v. Oai Light and Cdt
Co.. (1908) 1 Ch. m, 711 ; 78 L. J.

i

MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

Hut the jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction is exer-
cised with caution and is strictly confined to cases where
the remedy by damages ia inadequate for the purposes of

justice, and the restoring things to their former condition is
the only remedy which will meet the requirements of the
case ({).

Every injunction and mandatory order should be certain
and definite in its terms, and it ought to be quite clear what
the . erson against whom the injunction or order is made is
required to do, or tc refrain from doing. An order therefore
will not be made directing a defendant to repair such walls
as may need repair (?»).

The Court will not as a rule interfere by way of mandatory
injunction without taking into consideration the comparative
convenience and inconvenience which the granting or with-
holding the injunction would cause to the parties. Where the
injury done is capable of being fully and abundantly com-
pensated by a pecuniary sum, while the inconvenience to the
other party from granting an injunction would be serious, the
Court will not interpose by way of mandatory injunction,
but will award damages by way of compensation for the
injury (n). But where the act complained of is a breach of

Ch. 447 ; AU.-Gen. y. Orand June-
fion Canal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. p. 816;
78 L. J. Ch. 684. For form of
order restraining the erection of
buildings so aa to obstruct the
plaintiff's ancient lights, with
liberty to the plaintiff to apply for
a mandatwy injonction by way of
further ni&ii, eee ColU v. Home and
CuUmial Btoru, (1904) A. C. p. 194 ;
73 L. J. Ch. p. 493 ; and Anderson
V. Franeit, (1906) W. N. 160;
Ilujyiru v. lietU, (1905) 2 Ch. p.
ai8; 74 I,, .J. Ch. 621.

(/) See Colli V. Home and Cuhmial
Store; (1904) A. C. 193, 212; 73
L. J. Ch. 492, 802 ; A'ine T. Jotty,
(1908) 1 Ch. p. 804; Wattrlumtt y.
Watmrh»H$e, ^1906} M L. T. 1S4 ; 32
T. L. B. l«Si Att-Om. t. ArM,

(1913)87 a J. 625.

(m) Att-Oeii. V. .Slafford$hire
County Council, (1908) 1 Ch.
p. 342 ; 74 L. J. Ch. p. 188 ; and
see Worcttter College v. Oxford
Canal Navigation Co., (1913) 81
li. J. Ch. p. 3.

(ti) Ttenberg r. Etut India Houte
Co., 3 De O. J. & S. 263 ; 33 L. J.
Ch. 392 ; Stanley {Lady) v. SArein.
bury (Lord), 19 Eq. 620 ; 44 L. J. Ch.
389; Xatiimnl Provincial, etc., Co.
V. Prudential A»snra>ice Co., 6 C. D.
769; 46 h J. Ch. 871; Mien v.
Seikliam, 11 C. D. 798 j 48 L. J. Oh.
611; Sliel/er v. City </ London
Sltttrie Lighting Co., (1895) 1 Oh.
3Kj 64 li. J. Ch. 226; Cm-jxr v.
Laidhr, (1903) 2 Ch. 341 ; 72 L. J.
Oh. MO : OolU r. Htm and CoUmitA

MANDATOBY INJUNCTIONa

a negative covenant (o), or the injury is of 80 serious or
material a character that the restoring things to Uieir former

condition is the only remedy which will meet the require-
ments of the case, or the defendant has been guilty of
sharp practices or unfair conduct, or has shown a desire to
steal a march upon the plaintiff, or to evade the jurisdiction
of the Court, the injunction will issue, notwithstanding the
amount of inconvenience to the other {laity (p), and though
the expense thereby caused to him will be out of proportion
to any advantage the plaintiff may derive from it (</).

If the act complained of is continued or carried on after
clear and distinct notice that it is objected to, or if during the
progress of the action an undertaking has been given to pull
down the building if so ordered at the trial, and the injuiy
done is of a serious nature, the jurisdiction will be exercised
more freely than in cases where complaint is not made until
after the act is completed (r) ; but the mere fact that the act
complained of has been continued or carried on after notice of

Stort$, (1904) A. C. 193, 212; 73
L. J. Ch. 492; Knylish v. Metro-
ptJitaii Mater Boar:!, (1907) 1 K. B.
mt ; 76 L. J. K. B. 371 ; JUIti/ v.
Ilalifar Corj\oratUm, (1P07) 97 li. T.
278 ; 23 T. L. E. 613 ; and see Ki„e
V. Jolly, {m)b) 1 Ch. p. 504 ; 74
L. J. Ch. p. 183.

(o) Doherty v. Allman, 3 A. C.
p. 720 ; McEacham v. CoUm, (1902)
A. C. p. 107 ; 71 L. J. P. C. p. 21 ;
Biclcmore r. Dimmer, (1903) 1 Ch.
p. 168; 72 L. J. Ch. p. ic );
yormbyv. Barker, (!903) 2 Ch. p.
354; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 721 ; Kllisli n
V. Iteachrr, (1908) 2 Ch. p. 395 ; 79
L. J. Ch. p. 628; Att.-Cleii. v.
fValtliamttoiv Vrlnin Council, (1910)
1 Ch. p. 361 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 269;
and Me pott. Chap. X.

(/») Ittnhtrg r. EoH India Hvuh
Co., 3 De O. J. ft S. 263, 272 ; 33 L.
3. Ch. 302, 397 ; DtirtU v. Pritchard,
1 Ch. 244 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 223; Kelk
T. iWwN, 6 Ch. 812, 813; Uuodion

V. Richcardton, 9 Ch. 221, 224; 43
L. J. Ch. 790 ; Kreld v. llurrdl, 7
C. D. 551; 11 C. D. HO; 18 L. J.
Ch. 252 ; Maanaiiiia v. CiKike, 35
C. D. 698; 56 L. J. Ch. 669; Voii
Joel v. Honuey, (1895) 2 Ch. 774 ;
65 L. J. Ch. 102; Jordeum T.
Sittton, etc., (las Co., (1899) 2 Ch.
217; 68 L. J. Ch. 457; Cowper t.
Laidler, (1003) 2 Ch. 341 ; 72 J.
Ch. 378, 680; Coll' v. Nome and
Colonial Stores, (1904) A. C. p. 193 ;
73 I.. J. Ch. -192 ; Iliyyins v. Betts,
(1905) 2 Ch. p. 217; 74 L. J. Ch.
621; Kiw v. Jolly, (1905) 1 Ch.
495, 503, 504; 74 L. J. Ch. 188;
and see Jviiea v. Taitkerville (Karl),
(1909) 2 Ch. p. 446 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
676.

(q) W ooilhoutt r. Naerg Nam'ga-
titm Co., (1898) 1 Ir. B. 161.

(r) Jacomb v. Knight, 3 De 0. J. &
S. 638 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 601 : He,,biirn
V. Lordan, 2 11. & M. 345 ; 34 L. J.
Ch. 293 ; Urand Junction CancU Co.

MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

objection is not of itself a sufficient ground for the exercise of
the ' urisdiction, if the act is not a breach of a negative cove-
nant, and the injury d(me can be properly compensated by a
pecuniary sum (s).

A benefit resulting to the plaintiff through the act of the
defendant, though it is no compensation for injury, may be
taken into account in deciding whether an injunction or
damages shi i . be granted ( t) . There is no rule which prevents
the Court from granting a mandatory injunction where the
injury sought to be restrained has been completed before the
commencement of the action (u). On an application for a
mandatory injunction the Court will have regard to the
character of the building sought to be removed, and if the
b' 'ding is one which can be removed without any great
hardship being imposed on the defendant, may grant the
mandatory order, though the building was erected and com-
pleted before action brought and witliout any complaint on
the part of the plaintiff (x). Wliere there is a question as to
whether the defendant's act is lawful or not, and the defendant
has acted fairly, the Court should incline to avarding damages
rather than to granting an injunction (y). Vhe Court will
seldom interxere to pull down a building which has been
erected without complaint (s), nor will the Court, except

V. Shugar, 6 Ch. 489; Krehl v. Pearson, 6 Ch. 813; OooJtm v.

BHrrell, 7 C. D. S51 ; 11 C. D. iJtcAaretson, 9 Ch. 221 ; 43 L. J. Ch.

146; 48 L. J. Ch. 252; Smith v. 490; Smith v. Smith, 20 Eq. 504;

Day, 13 C. D. 652; Ortmwood v. 44 L. J. Ch. 630; Morrii v. Grant,

Hornieg, 33 C. D. 471 ; 55 L. J. 84 W. B. 65 ; Lawrence v. Borton,

Ch. 917 ; Parker v. SUuilea, (1903) 59 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 38 W. B. 555;

50 W. B. 283. Shirl Y. Godfrey, (1893) W. N. 115.

(«) Isenher;/ v. East linlia Iltiuie, (x) Baxter v. Btmer, 44 L. J. Ch.

dr., Co., 3 be O. J. & S. 263 ; 33 625 ; see Gatkin v. Balls, 13 0. D.

L. J. Ch. 392- Senior v. Pawson, p. 329.

L. B. 3 Eq. 335. As to breach of (i/) ColU v. Hoine and Colouial

negative Goveaanta, see note (e), 5<oru, (1904) A. C. p. 193; 73 L.

tupra. 3. Ch. p. 493 ; and aee Kint v. Jolly,

(0 Naiimua, tie., FiaU Ola** (190S) 1 Ch. p. 504; 74 L. J. Ch.

Atiuranxt Co. v. PrvdmHal Auur- p. 183.

atice Co., 6 C. D. p. 769 ; 46 L. J. (z) Gatkin y. BaOt, 13 C. J>. p.

Ch. 875. 329; Curriers' Co. T. Cor6<M, 4 De

(u) Durell v. Pritchard, 1 Ch. G. J. & 8. 764.
244 ; 35 L. J. Oi. 233; KM

46

MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

Cki^ni. under very special circumstances, order a defendant to pull
down a building which lias been erected in breach of a cove-
nant by his predecessor in title, the defendant being in no way

responsible for the breach of covenant («).
OtUj, A man who comes to the Court for a mandatory injunction

should use due diligence in making the application. Mere
delay will not be fatal to the application if no mischief is
caused thereby to tho defendant, and the delay does not exceed
a reasonable period (b) ; but the right to a mandatory injunc-
tion is gone if there has been unreasonable delay, and mischief
would be caused thereby to the defendant (c).

If a proper cose be made out, a mandatory injunction may
be granted against an agent (d).
lUaOttorr A mandatory injunction is not as a rule granted before the

5^j2r^ted hearing (e), but where the case is clear and fiee from doubt,
befon be-vthn. it may be had upon interloeutory application (/), especially if
the act required to bo done involves no serious outlay, nor
any considerable alteration in the existing state of things (g).
Thus where a defendant on being served with notice of
motion for an injunction hurried on his building, a mandatory
injunction was granted on an interlocutory application (h).
So also, where a defendant, knowing that a writ for an injunc-

(a) PoMJett T. Htmiky, (19TO) 2 (N. 8.) Ch. M ; 30 R B. 289 ; Juhn-

Ch. 262, 259 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 744. tlon v. dmrti of Justice Chambers,

(i) Oo/e V. Abbott, 8 Jur. N. 8. (1883) W. N. 5 ; Bvnner v. Owol

987 ; Wooilhmie v. AVury Nat-iga- Western Railway Co., 24 C. D. 1.
tioti Co., (1898) 1 Ir. R. 161. See (/) Une v. Newdiyate, 10 Ves.

Worregter Colleije v. Dxfnril Cunal 192; 7 E. B. 381; Bonntr T. Ortat

Savi;iatUm, (1912) 81 L. .1. Ch. 1. WtOern Railway Co., ; Her-

(c) .ScHH/r V. Pawson, L. R. 3 £q. maun Loog v. Btan, 26 0. D. 314,

;j3o; Ownd v. Fyimey, 8 Ch. 14 ; 315; A3 L. J. Oh. 1128; Allpott

42 L. J. Ch. 122 ; Hmilh v. Smitk, v. Th* Btatritie* Co., 64 L. J Ch

20 Bq. 500 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 630 ; 491; 72 L. T. 533; ColUyn- v.

Chukin r. BaUt, 13 C. D. 328; Warrtn, (1901) 1 Ch. 815, 816;

IForcMfer College r. Or/ord Canal 70 L. .T. Ch. 382.
Kavigation, ntpra. {,,) Harvey v. Smith, 1 K. 4 J.

(rf) Cohen V. Poland, (1887) W. N. 389, 392 ; 103 R. R. HI.

('') I>ai,u-ll V. FeryiiaoH, (1891) 2

(e) aaU V. Abbott, 8 Jur. N. .S. Ch. 27 ; and see Parker v. 8ia»ky,

98" ; Blakemore v. Glamorgaruhire (1902) 50 W. B. 263.
Canal Co., 1 M. ft K. 154; 2 L. J.

MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

47

Ck^ III
BMia.

tion had been issued against him, evadod service and con-
tinued the works, a mandatory injunction was granted on
interlocutory applicaticm in respect of wmaeh of the building
as had been erected between tiie iMoe mad senriee of the

writ (i).

On granting a mandstory injiiQcti<Mi, the Court may order SupMdM «(
that its operation be suspended until after ti certain period (k) . '"j""*"""^

Where the Court of Appeal has granted an injunction, but AppUcMMfbr
has suspended its application for a certain time, application
for ft further suspeneioi riiould be made to the Court of first
instance (/).

(t) Kon Joa r. Hamieg. (ISM) a
Ch. 774 ; 05 Tj. J. Ch. 103.

(A) Smith V. Smith, 20 Eq. 500,
50j; 4 lL. J. Ch.630,6;j3; Att.-Gtn.
V. Colneij llatrh, 4 Ch. U6; Shiel v.
Uod/re;/, (1H93) W. N. U5 ; Att.-
(leu. V. Willetden Dittrkt Council,
(18U(>) 12 T. L. B. S28; /tUnyfoii
Vettry v. Hortmg Urban OomuH,
(1900) 1 Ch. p. 707 ; iV.V« ftrteM
Candle Co, t. London County
CoHHcU, (1908) 2 Ch. 326, 544 ; 78
L. J. Ch. p. 8; AU.-Oeu. v. Oihb,

(1909) 2 Ch. 279 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 528 ;
Stancomh v. Trmrhru/i/e IHttrict
Council, (1910) 2 Ch. 191 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 519; Tubh, v. Euer, (1910) 26
T. L. R. 146; Schwe>ler v. WoHhinij
Out Liyht anil Cokt Co., (1912)
81 L. J. Ch. 102; AH.-Qtn. v.
£«ii>M Cwponrfim, (1911) a Ch. 4M,
M9; 105L.T. 701.

(.n Shilfer V. City of London
Eltetrk Liyhting Co., (1805; 2 Ch.
MS; ML. J.Cai.798.

CHAPTEB IV.

UUUNOnOHS AOAINIT WA8TB.

BEOnOir l.—PBINCIPLM OM WBIOB TBI OODBT ACTS IB
BBSTBAIBIBO WASTI.

ciwii. IV. The principles on which the Court acts in restraining waste
'^^^ by injunction are the same as those upon which it proceeds
rMM°ning cases where its interposition is son^t for the pro-

vant. tcction of legal rights (a). The jurisdiction is not, however,

limited to cases where an action at law can be maintained,
but extends to cases where, in consequence of the infirmity of
legal process, there is neither a right nor a remedy at law,
but only what the law in principle acknowledges to be t)
wrong (6). Thus, as early as the reign of King Richard the
Seemd, an injuncti(m was granted at the suit of a remainder*
man to stay waste by a tenant for life or for years, althoo^
the existence of an intermediate life estate formed a temporary
impediment to an action at law (c)'.
If wmU Iwof • It is not necessary for a man to wait til a serious act of
the Cowrt wui waste has been committed, before applying to the Court for
■ot intwrfen. j^g interference by injunction (•/), But the Court will not
interfere where the waste is trivial and of small extent (e), or
where the person against whom relief is sought baa stopped

Ante, ft. hietseti. Donm v. Carroll, 11 Ir. Ch. 383 ;

(6) Empcr'.r of Ausiriay. Dan,Z (Ininu Canal Co. v. McXamee, 29

De O. F. & J. p. 254, }>er Turner, L. R. Ir. IJl ; and see Doherly v.

L.J. ; Rohiuaon v. Litton, 3 Atk. Allman, 3 A. C. p. 733; Jonet
p. 210 ; Farrant v. Lovell, ib. 723. Chajtjiell, 20 Eq. p. 542 ; 44 L. J.

(c) Moore, 664 ; Roiw^ft ca$t, I Ch. 668 ; Meux v. CoWey, (1892) 2

Eoll. Ab. 377, pL 13 ; Farrant t. Ch. p. 264 ; 61 L. J. Ch. p. 452 ;

LoveU, 3 Atk. 723. Wttt Ham Cmtrti Chanty B,>ard v.

(rf) Oibton Smith, 2 Atk, 182 ; Eait London Waterworkt Co., (1900)

Coffin r. Coffin, iws. 71 ; 23 R. R. 1. 1 Ch. pp. 636, 636; 69 L. J. Ch.

(«) Brae$ t. Taylor, 2 Atk. 263; 267, 262; Ilyman v. Rou, (1912) A.

Barrji t. Surry, I J. * W. 6M; 0. 623; 81 L. J. K B, 1082.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

committing waste since the bringing of the action (/). If, Ch.p. ir.
howcirer, an intention to commit further waste can be shown,
the Ckmrt will iD*«rfwe, thou^ the first acts of waste may
huvo been of a trivial nature (. ) ; but where waste of one
kind has been done or threatened, the injuoction will not be
extended to wMto of another kind (A).

The Court has jurisdiction, if a ftiir cmo of proepectire v«v-a^m
injury can be made out, to intorfore before waste has been j£l2r^
actually committed. If an intention to commit waste can
be shown to exist, or if • man ioaistii oo bia right w threatens
to commit waste, there is a foundation for the exweise of the
jurisdiction (t).

The words "on pain of forfeiture" after a prohibition
ogninst the commission of waste do not take away the rights
und remedies which arise from the prohibition itself, but will
be regarded as having been inserted merely as a more effectual
means of enforcing the obligation (A).

A man who comes to the Court for an injunction (I) against D.Uy.
waste should use due diligence in making the application.
Belay, however, is not so prejudicial to the plaintiff in eases
of waste or trespass as in other applications for injunc-
tions (m). In some cases indeed delay is not material. A
man, for instance, who has been permitted to cut down half
of the trees upon the land of another, can acquire no title from
the negligence of the owner, to cut down the remainmg
half (n). Nor can t<»»nt8 who have been in the habit of

(/) Barrt/ t. Burrg, 1 J. ft W.
653. Cf. Antm., 3 Atk. 4U.

99 B. B. 318 ; and see the Judica-
ture Act, 1873, «. 25, 8ub-8. (8). w)
to gT-antiiig injunctions in cases of
"apprehended waate."

(?) Coffin T. Coffin, Jao. 71 ; 23
fi- B. 1 ; Barry Y. Barry, 1 J. 4 W.
643 ; D(^an v. Carroll, 11 Ir. Ch.
383. As to when the Court will
infer an intention to repeat the act
ooniplained of, see PhiUipt v.
Tl,(>ma», 62 L. T. 793 (nuisance).

(/') CofiH T. Coffin, Jaa 78; 23

(0 Barry t. Barry, 1 J. ft W.
661. See Bagot t. Bagot, 32 Bear.
aOB; 38L. J.Ch. 116.

(A) Blake V. Peteri, 1 De G. J. ft
S. 345 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 200.

(<) Gilmm v. Smith, 9 Atk. 182;
Coffin V. Coffin, Jac. 71 ; 23 H. R.
1 ; Barry v. Barry, IJ. ft W. 663 ;
CamiMl T. AUgeed, 17 Bmt. <I38;

R. B. 1.

(m) Pee Jmut v. Llann>it Urban
Council, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 411; M
L. J. Ch. p. 154.

(«) Ait-Qen. v. Eaitlalce, 11 Ha.
228; 90 B. B. 648. pw Lorf

50

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

cutting turf or working quarries for many years acquire a

title as against their landlord to continue to do so (o). Nor

is a man who bay* land oaed by tcnanta for makiiig brieks, or

who purchases Innd with notice that the liind was being con-
verted into a burying-ground, precluded from complaining of
waste committed after the porchase (p). The case howerer
is different if the tenant for life or lessee has been encouraged
by the acquieicence of the reversioner or lessor to expend
monies upon the property upon the faith and understanding
that no obstacle will be afterwards thrown in the way of their
enjoyment (q). In the case of mines the utmost promptitude
in making the application is requisite (r).

BIOTIOII 2.— UMAX. WABTI.

Wbiu UwMte. Waste is a substantial injury to the inheritanee done by

one having a limited estate either of freehold or for yeora
during the ccntinuance of his estate (<). The essential
character of waste ia, that the party committing it ia in right-
ful possession, and that there is a prirtty, of titto beti^eMi the

parties (0-

T jnsequences of waste do not attach unless substantial
dam. i dfue to the inheritance (»), which may be either^

(o) Loni Couiioutn v. Ward, 1
8ch. ft Lef. 8 ; OrijfUh, S

C. D. p. 628; 4 A. 0. 464; 48

L. J. Ch. 811.

(;/) Vregan v. Cullen, 16 Ir. Ch.
339.

{q) Iturry v. Harry, 1 J. 4 W.
661. See ante, pp. iO— 24.

(r) Hilton v. Lord QrancUle, Cr.
ft Ph. 383; 10 L. J. Ch. 398 ; 64
B. B. 297 ; PamU v. Palwr, 3 M.
ft K. 636 ; 41 B. B. 149; Ckgg t.
Edmond*m, 8 De O. M. ft 0. 808 ; 26
L. J. Ch. 246; 114 B. E. 279.

(.) Co. Lift. 5.J a; 1 Cr. Dig.
115; see Mtux v. VMfj, (1892)
2 Ch. 263 ; 61 L. J. Ch. p. 449;

Wmt Ifam Ckwrity Board v. Eatt
L«ndm Wattrwerlu Co., (1900) 1
Ch. p. 636; 6» L. J. Ob 293;
Ilytnan y. Rote, (1913) A. C. p. 693 ;
81 L. J. K. B. p. 1066.

(t) Davenport v. Davenport, 7 Ha.
p. 222 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 163; 82 B. B.
TC ; Lowndu T. BtUk, 33 L. J. Oh.
451, 454.

(u) Meux V. Cohliy, (1892) 2 Ch.
263 : 61 L. J. Ch. 449 ; Wft Ham,
Cl-aritjf Board r. JSm( Lmukm
n'aierwork$ Co., (1900) 1 Oh.
pp. 636, 636 ; 69 L. J. Ch. p. 203.
See Mmund y. MarUtl, (1907) 24
T. L. B. 25 ; Uyman y. Bote, evfra.

LXOAL WASm

lit, by diminishing the /slue of the estate; 2ndly, by <WIT
increwmg the burden, upon it; or 8rdly, by impairing the «•
•vidanM of tit}« («). An act whieb inoreMea the value of an
ostuto may nevertheless bo waste if it impMrt tlto •vidmee
of title (y), or inoreiwes the burdr:., •>n the property (x). The
owner of the inheritance has a right (subject to certoin
•Ututory modifloatioo. (*)) to require th«t the nature and
character of the property shall not bo changed by the owner
of the limited estate to the injury of the inheritance (a)
Wasie which increaaea the value of property is called
raHioratmg waste (b). To obtain an injunction on the ground
of waste, a plaintiff must prove that the acU of the defendant
are prejudieial to the inheritance (c).

Waste is either roluntary or iwrmissive (d). Volantary wmu rtw
waste consists in the commission of acts which the owner of
the limited estate has no authority to do. such as cutting """"^
timber, pulling down or subatantially altering («) buildinga.
Permissive waste arises from the omission of acts which it
is his duty to do, as, for example, permitting buildings to go
to decay by neglecting to repair tiiem (/).

fl

(x) Doe V. Earl of Ilurlint/tun, 6
n. & Ad. 507, 517; 3 L. J. (N. S.)
K. x^. 26; 39 R. R. 849; Ilmitlty
V. It,t»»ell, 13 Q. B. 572, 888; 18
L. J. Q. B. 239; 78 B. E. 441 ;
Jonea v. ChapptU, 20 Eq. SW; 44
L. J. Ch. eW; Wmt Jim CImritg
Board T. JBaK Imthm Wattmerh
Co.. (190i») 1 Ch. 894, C36; 60
L. J. Cli. 2d7, S62.

(.'/) Simnumt v. Xrton, 7 Bing.
648 ; 9L. ,r j.S.)V.P.185; Dide
of Ht. ilbano v. Skijiwith, S Beav.
357; U L. J . f h. 248; but see
Voherty y. .U/m iu, 3 A. 0. p. 786.

{z) See infra. Sect 6.

(a) Wut Ham CHaritg Beard v.
Eatt Itmdm Watinaorht Co., (1900)
ICh. 624; eOL. J. Ch. 257. But
see Hyman v. Hote, tujira.

(A) a Win*. Saund. 259 ; Duke of
Amhmt, S Ik. m; »

L. J. Ch. 351; 78B. B.47; Ccf.
pinger v. OuiWut, 3 J. 4 L. 417 •
72 B. B. 81; Doktrtgr. Attman, 3
A. 0.729, 784. 9MM*tuty. CoMey,
(1808) a Oh. 883 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 449;
Mdmund y. Martelt, (1907) 24
T. L. B. 25.

(<■) DoheHy v. Allman, 3 A. C.
p. 734 ; Meux y. Cobley, (1892) 2
Ch. 253, 263 ; 61 L. J. Ch. p. 4fi2 ;
Ite Melntoih and J'vntypridd /m.
prove.yMtt Co., 61 L. J. Q. B. 164 ;
Grand Canal Co. v. MoSawm, 29
L.B.Ir.181; sMir^y. Jto„,
tupra.

(d) At to whether there is any
liability for permissive waste, get,
poit, p. 65.

(r) 8e<> Tfifman t. Ros

(/") Co. Litt. 63 a ;
M'Cann, 1 Ir. 0. L, 208 ;
Bfomnr, 10 B. * 0. 148. '

Totmgr.

52

LEGAL WABTB.

Ch«p. IV.

Sect 2.

\V:iste at coni-
mi>n law imnisb'
able only in
certain cue*.

Wait* in tnaa.

What trees ar«
timber.

Wnate— wken

committed hy
cutting down
tree* which are
MttiBbw.

At common law waste was punishable only in the case of
tenant in dower, tenant by the courtesy, and guardian. These
estates being the creaticm of law, the law annexed to ttiem the
condition that waste should be neither done nor permitted. A
tenant for life ^r for years was no' at common law liable for
waste in the absence of an express stipulation to that effect in
the instrument by which his estate was created. An estate
for life being not tlie creation of the law, but of the parties to
the instrument, the law would not imply a condition against
waste in cases where no provision to that effect was made (g).
This defect in the law was remedied by the Stiitutes of Marl-
bridge, 52 Hen. 3, c. 23, andOlouoester, 6 £dw. 1, o. ^5, which
enabled the writ of waste which lay at common law to be
isL id against tenants for life and tenants for years.

Timber trees are parcel of the inheritance. A tenant for
life or years, or other owner of a limited estate, has only a
right to their shade and fruit daring the continuance of hii
estate (h). It is waste if he cuts them down, or does any act
to impair their value or cause them to decay (t). The cutting
of timber which ia overripe may be waste (k).

Timber trees are such as are useful for the purpose of
building. Ash, oak, and elm, of the age of twenty years and
upwards, are timber in all places (l), and by the custom
of different counties, other trees, such as birch, beech,
walnut, whitethorn, willow, blackthorn, hornbeam, etc., are
timber (m).

The cutting of many sorts of trees, which are not otherwise

timber, as hornbeams, hazels, willows, sallows, etc., etc., may,
from the situation in which they are placed, be considered

2 Inst. 145, 299 ; Often T.
Cok, 2 Wms. Saund. 252.

(A) 4 Co. B«p. 62 b; 11 Co. Bap.
50 a; 1 BolLAb. 181.

(<) Co. LiH. S3 a.

'il-) Perrott v. Prrrott, 3 Atk. 93 ;
Sfoyram v. Kuiyht, 2 Ch. 628; S«e
now, however, 40 & 41 Vict. c. 18,
B. 16; and 46 & 40 Vict. c. 36,

(0 Co. Litt. A3 a; 2 BolL Ab.
814; Dyvt, 66 a.

(m) Co. litt 53 a ; Ihtkt of
Ckandot T. TtMot, 2 P. Wmi. 606 ;

Ilonywood v. Uonywood, 18 Eq.
306 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 652 ; Dathwood
V. Mayniac, (1891) 3 Ch. 306 ;
60 L. J. Ch. 809 : Pardee v. Pardoe,
(1900) 82 L. T. 647 ; CruiM, Dig. tit
8, ch. i, ML 5—7.

LEGAL WASm M

waste, as if they support a bank, or grow within the site of oh«p. iv.
or shelter a house, or are used as shelter by cattle (n). ^t. 2.

Where trees hare been planted as an improvement under Tree, planted m
tho Settled Land Acts, the tenant for life and his successors in Sdw^rtST*
title having under the settlement n limited estate or interest l*"*!-****
only in the settled land, are not entitled to cut dovn any of
such trees except in proper thinning (o).

It is not waste to cut down trees which are not timber either Unm aotUaibw.
by law or custom, or from the situation in which they are
placed, unless some special prejudice arises thereby to the
inheritance (p). Nor is the cutting dowi. of oak, ash, and elm o.k. «.b, ein.,
trees under twenty years of age waste, provided they are cut
down for the purpose of allowing the proper development and
growth of other timber in the same wood or plantatim (q).
But the cutting down of trees which being undor twenty years
of age are not timber, but which would be timbur if they were
over twenty years of age, is waste, provided it be not done for
the purpose of improving the other trees (r).

The general rules with respect to waste in timber are sub- KxcepUon i. tk.
ject to exceptions in the case of what are called timber ^St^""'*'
estates (s), that is to say, " estates the trees on which, though
timber, may, by virtue of a local usage, be cut periodically
when grown in woods, with a view to secure a succession of
timber and to preserve such woods " (<).

It is not waste to cut hedges, bushes, and „nderwood, and Pnderwoodwa
even oaks and ashes which have been usually cut as under- ~pp'"'
wood, provided the cutting be done in a reasonable and hus-
bandlike manner, and so as not to eradicate or destroy the

(h) Co. Litt. 53 a; PhiUippt v. Eq. 310; 43 L. J. Ch. ti55; ™„

^miih, 14 M. & W. 893. Lowndet v. yorUm, (1876) W N

(»] Settled Lud Axlt, 1883, ■. 221.

'■^^ ('■^)- («) Femtmd v. Wihom, 4 Hk. S75 ;

(/') Co. Litt. aa a; BamU v. 10 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 67 E. R. 70;

/tarrett, Het.36; J^OK/ipiT.Sm**, Lard Laval v. DMhtst of Lte,h •>'

H M. ft W. 089. Dr. ft S. 73; Hinyxooo,! v. H<.ny'

{q) Piilgeley v. limvUng, 2 Coll. ,roo,l, 18 Eq. 310; 43 L. J. Ch. 652;

275 ; Earl Cowley v. Wellesley, L. B. and see the Settled Land Act, I882!

1 Eq. 656 ; Himywood v. Honvwood. b. 35.

18 Eq. 309 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 604. (I) Datkwood r. Magniae, (18»1)

(f) Hmpatti r. Mm^/weed, 18 8 Ck. 8«7; SO L. J. G)l pw MS.

T

64

LEGAL WASTE.

Cb^t. IT.
See*. 2.

Dead tree*.

KieeptioD of
treee.

RigbU of copy-
holder in timber.

geimens or prevent their future growth (u). Nor is it waste to
cut timber where the underwood ia the most important part of
the produce, and the cutting of timber is necessary for its

growth (x).

It seems that it is not waste to fell trees which are
completely dead and bear neither fruit nor leaves (y),
and have not sufficient timber in them for buildings or

posts (z).

Trees which have been excepted out of a demise may not be

cut down by the tenant (a). An exception of trees generally
applies only to timber trees, and not to apple or other fruit
trees, or the like (6). Where the exception was of timber and
other trees, but not the annual fruit thereof, it was held that
apple trees were not within it, because it was to be construed
strictly age.inst the lessor (c).

A copyholder, being considered in law to be a tenant at will,
has in general the same possessory interest in the trees as he
has in the land. Apart from special custom, he cannot cut
down trees or do any other act to the injury of the freehold
except with the lord's concurrence (r/) . But by custom a
copyholder of inheritance, or a copyholder for life, with power
to renew and nominate his successor, may have the right to
fell timber upon his tenement and retain the same tor his own
use (e). The lord cannot, any more tlian the copyholder, cut
down trees upon the tenement of a copyholder, without a
custom authorising him to do so (/).

(u) Co. Litt. 53 a ; Brydget v.
Btephmi, 6 Madd. 279 ; 23 B. B.
217; Humphrtys v. ffarrium, 1
J. ft W. S81 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 254 ; 21
K. R. 238 ; ridifehy v. Rawlinfj. 2
Coll. 275 ; TO R. R. 2J0 ; rhiltipps
V. Smith, 14 M. & W. Karl
Cou Uij V. WeUeslei/, li. R. 1 Eq. 656.

(x) Knii/lit V. Diiplestii, 2 Ves. 361

\y) Co. Litt. S,'} a ; 2 Roll. Ab. 814.

(z) Manwood't ca$e. Moor. 101,
Dyer 322.

(a) OoodrigKt v. VMcut. 8 But,
190. Sw Legk v. HmU, 1 B. ft A.
633; » L. J. K. B. 99; 3« B. B.

402 ; Dot dtm. DouglM v. Lock, 2
A. ft E. 708 ; 4 L J. (N. 8.)K. B.
113; 41 B. B. 496; Iht v. iVtce.
8 C. B. 894 ; 19 L. J. 0. P. 121 ; 79

R. H. 803.

(h) Wyndham v. IToy, 4 Tannt.
316; 13 R. B. 607.

(r) IliiHen v. Denninq, It. ,V C
842; 4L. J. K.B.314; 29E.E.431.

(fl) Eaniley v. Lord Oranvm*, 3
C. D. p. 832.

(e) Blewttt V. Jtnkint, 19 0. B.
N. S. 16.

(/) \nittekureh v. HoUwcrth^,

i9yM.3M: i6B.B.4n.

LEGAL WASTE. 65

" Ab regards trees in an ordinary copyhold," said Jessel, chap. iv.

M.B., in Eardley v. Lord Granville (g), the property remains

in the lord, but in the absence of custom, he cannot cut them
down. The possession is in the copyholder; the property is
in the lord. If a stranger cuts down the trees, the copyholder
can maintain trespass against the stranger, and the lord can
maintain trover for the trees. If the lord cuts down the
trees, the copyholder can maintain trespass against the lord ;
but if the copyholder outs down the trees, irrespective of the
question of forfeiture, the lord can bring an action against
tlie copyholder."

A tenant for life or for years has the right to cut timber by
way of estovers for the necessary repairs of the house and
principal buildings, the fences, gates, and agricultural imple-
ments. If there is no underwood, he may also cut, or at least
lop, timber for the purpose of firewood (h). He has this
privilege of common right, but the estovers must be reason-
able (i). The right to estovers attaches as a right to the
particular estate on which they have been taken. Estovers
cut on one estate cannot be used on another (A;). A tenant for
life or for years may cut timber to repair houses which he is
not strictly bound to repair (l), but his may not cut timber to
make new fences or to build new houses, or to repair houses
which he has wasted or suffered to be wasted (m). Nor can
he cut timber for the purpose of working mines (n). The
cutting of timber which is not fit for repairs (o), or the cutting

(9) 3 0. D. p. BSa : 4« L. J. Oh. IM; SBio. 0. 0. S7; ITm. Jr. 78;
072. Niuh v. lEart 0/ Derby, 3 Yern. 037.

(I) Co. Litt 54 b.

(m) Co. Litt. 63b; 2 Roll. Ab.
816; Darcyy. Atkwith, Hob. 234.
Craig on Trees, 4; see IIowUij v. See the Settled Land Act, 1882,
Jel,h, 8 Ir. C. L. 435. See, as as. 29 and 35, infra. Chap. IV.,
to covenant by lessee to repair, Se 3t. 6, as to right of a tenant for
" having or taking sufficient house- lifj to cut timber for executing
bote, and without committing ai.thorised improTMDMits, aad
waste," DtanandOhapttro/BritM ti nber rip* for ontiiBg.
T. Jonu, 1 EL * BL 484 ; SS (ii) Dinty t. AAurith, titjmi.
L. J. a B. StOl ; 117 B. B. 8M. (o) Bimmau t. Norton, 7 Bing.

(i) Oo. litt 41 b. 648; e L. J. 0. P. 186; 38 B. B.

{k) Lm T. AUhn, 1 Ko. C. 0. 888.

(A) Manwooft tat*, Moor. 101

2 Boll. Ab. 823; Co. Litt 41 b
Vin. Ab. Waste ; Com. Dig. Waste

86

LEGAL WASTE.

<^|^nr. of more timber than is necessary for repairs (/)), is waste.

— But if timber be cut down bond fide for the purpose of being

used in repairs, the tenant is justified, though he may have
over-caiculated the quantity required (g). The timber cut
must be applied specifically towards the actual repairs for
which it has been cut. It cannot be sold for the purpose of
raising money for the purchase of other timber (r), or for the
purpose of defraying the expenses of past or contemplated
repairs (s) ; nor can it be exchanged for other timber better
adapted for the repairs in question (t).

ErioTui. Timber may not be cut for the purjwse of firewood as long

as there is any dry or decayed wood or underwood on tbe
land (u).

A copyholder is entitled to estovers by custom, and it would
appear that he is entitled to them of common right even
without a custom (x).

The committee of a lunatic's estate may cut timber for
repairs as a prudent owner would do (y).
WaMaia^Mi The cutting of fruit trees growing in a garden or orchard is
waste, unless they have been torn up by the wind (z) . But it
is not waste to cut fruit trees which do not grow in a garden
or orchard, but grow scatteringly on dirers places of the
land (a). The ploughing up a strawberry-bed before it is
exhausted has been held to be waste (b).

It is waste if the tenant of a dove-house, warren, park, fish-

(p) Ca Li S3 b. See M to LittfiSb; Cruise, Dig. 80 ; Colev.

teiuuita for j, S. L. Act, 1883, Peyton, 1 Ch. Ca. 106.

29. (x) Hfijdon'i case, 1.3 Co. Bep.

(./) East V. Hardinij, Cro. Eliz. 67.

498; Doe v. Wilson, 11 East, 56. (y) Ex imrte l.mUoir, 2 Atk. -JOT.

(r) Co. Litt. 53 b ; LewU BmrU's (i) Co. Litt. S3 a ; Littler v.

case, 11 Co. Eep. 82 a; Simmoni v. Thompton, 2 Beav. 129 ; 50 B. B.

Norton, 7 Bing. 648 ; 9 L. J. 0. P. 134. See the AgricultunJ Hold-

185; 33 E. B. 588. ing« Act, 1908, 8 Bdw. 7, c. 38,

(() ChrgM V. StanfiM, Cro. Elis. s. 43 (1) (iii.) ; and the Small HoW-

693 ; £«« T. AUion, 1 Bro. 0. C. ingg and Allotments Act, 1908, 8

194 ; 3 Bro. 0. 0. 37 ; Oomr v. Edw. 7 c. 36, g. 47, as to lemoval

Eyrt. Coop. 166. of fniit trees.

(<) Att.-Oen. V. Htawell, 2 Anst («) Bro. Ah. Wast*, pi. 143.

P- ^1- («) WnthmU T. JioMeU*, 1 Ctotp.

(«) 2 EoU. Ab. 820, pi. 9; Co. 227.

67

Chi^ IV.

LEGAL WASTE.

pond, or the like take so many of the animals that the per-
petuitj of saccession is destroyed (c) ; or suffer the pale of
the park to decay so that the deer escape, or permit the banks Wa.t« in parks,
of the fiah-pond to get out of repair so that the fish escape or Txc!^''
the pond dries up («/). If the lessee of a warren by charter or
prescription plough up the land, it ia waste («), but it is
otherwise if it be only land stored with conies and not a legal
warren; a. d stopping up and digging cony burrows is not
waste in a warren (/). Deer in a lawful park are part of the
inheritance: it is waste in a tenant for life to do anything
to sever the deer from the inheritance; and it seems that
reclaiming deer is an act of waste, because it makes them no •
longer venison in a park, but chattels like any other dcnnes-
ticated . nimals (rj).

It is waste if a tenant for life or for years dig for clay, Wa«t« in minw,
gravel, lime, brick, earth, minerals, stones^ or the like (h). If
there bo a grant of lands, or of lands and mines expressly, he
may dig and take the profits of mines, gravel pits, or clay
pits, open at the time of the grant, or which a preceding
tenant in tail under the settlement, or other perscm ri^tfully
entitled to open, may have opened, but he may not open new
ones (t). Nor does a lower to lease with the mines land on

(f ) Co. Litt. 63 b ; Hob. 234 ;
Vavasour's rate, 2 Leon . 222 ; A non. ,
i Lev. 240; Kimftmi v. Eve, 2
V. & 13. 349; 13 R. E. 116. Seeil/oy-
i<nr<l V. Gibton, (1876) W. N. 204, for
decliiration that tenant for life was
not entitled to deer and pigeona
absolutely, but only to their leaaon-
able enjoyment

{d) Oo. Liti fi3 a; Hob. 2.34;
Bathnrit r. Burden, 2 Bro. C. C. 64.

(e) Co. Litt.53 b ; Angerttmn t.
Hunt, 6 Ves. 487.

(/) Lurting v. Conn, 1 Ir. Ch. 273.

('/) /■'.«•</ V. Tynte, 2 J. & H. 153 ;
31 L. J. Ch. 180, per Wood, V.-C.

{!•) Bro. Ab. Wa«te, pL 83 ; Co.
litt 03 b; 2BolL Ab.8ie. Sm.
bowevw, BOW M to tiM powtn of a

tenant for life, 8. L. Act, 1889.

8. 29.

{«') Co. Litt. 54 b; Saiinden'
casf, 5 Co. Bep. 12 a; Viner r.
Vaiighan, 2 Beav. 460; SO B. B.
24a ; ffuntley r. Rumll, 13 Q. B.
591; 18 L. J. a B. 239 ; 78 B. B.
441 ; Bagot v. Bngot, 32 Beav. 509;
33 L. J. Ch. 118 ; Cleyg y. Botvlan<l,
L. H. 2 Eq. 160 ; 35 L J. Ch. 396 ;
Dashici.il V. Afai/niar, (1891) 3 Ch.
p. 360; 60 L. j. Ch. 831; May-
nartVa Settled Eitatf, (1899) 2 Ch.
352 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 611. Sea a« to
whether mines are opm or not,
Eliaiy. Snowdon Slatt Qiiarrm,4
A C. p. 466 i 48 L. J. Oh. 818;
a* Magnard. (1899) 3 Ch. 347 ; 68
I J. Ok 009; At CMt^, (1800)

68

LEGAL WASTE.

which there are both open and unopened mines authorise
a lease of unopened mines (A).
As a tenant for life is entitled to continue the working of

mines which were open at the time he came in, so he may use
all meanb necessary for working them. He may, if it can be
done without any special damage to the inheritance, sink new
shafts and pits to follow the same vein of coal {l),or to reach
new seams lying under the old seams (m). But it is doubtful
whether he has a right to open pits or mines which have been
abandoned, or the preparations for opening which have not
beei completed. The question must always depend on the
circumstances of each particular case (n).

The rale ibai a tenant for life may continue the worit-
mg of open mines, gravel or clay pits, extends to the case
of quarries of slate or limestone, which have been worked by
the owner of the inheritance for the purpose of making a
profit; but it seems that the rule does not apply to cases
where stone or slate has been dug out of a quarry for the
purjMse of building or repairing houses on the property, and
not for the purpose of profit (o)c

The reservation of minerals inelades all reaamable means
of getting them (p).

2 Ch. 804; 69 L. J. Ch. 837;
(ireviUe-Nuijent v. 3/arAeHzte, ( 1 900)

A. C. 83 ; 69 L. J. P. C. 1. See as
to working gravel pits so as to
destroy the surfaca, EUit v. Brom-
ley Local n<^rd, 4S L. J. Ch. 763,
(1876) W. N. 186.

(k) Cltgg T. BowUmd, L. B. 2 Eq.
160; 36 L. J. Ch. 396; In rt
BtukerviUe. (1910) 2 Ch. 329 ; 79
L. J. Ch. 687 ; In re Danieh, (1912)
2 Ch. !K) ; r,. J. (^h. 509.

(/) Whilfield V. Ikn it, 2 P. Wms,
240 ; Cl-treriiig v. Claveriny, ib. 388 ;
Viner v. Vauyhan, 2 Beav. 469; 50

B. R. 245 ; Kliat v. Snowden Slate
Qmrri€*, 4 A. C. 466 ; 48 L. J.
Oh. 811, per Lati Sribome ; Dtuk-
wood T. Magniae, ( 1691) 3 Ch. p. 361 ;

60 L. J. Ch. 831 ; see In re May-
hard's Settled Estate, (1899) 2 Ch.
351 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 609 ; lie Chaytor,
(1900) 2 Ch. 804 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 837.

(m) Spencer v. Scurr, 31 Bmt.
334 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 808.

(n) Viner r. FoM^Am, 2 Bmv.
469; fiOB.B.245; Sagot w. Bagot,
32 Beav. 509, 516 ; 33 L. J. Ch.
116; Hinch v. Dep$(m, 78 L. T. Jo.
321 ; lie Chaytor, (1900) 2 Ch. 804 ;
69 L. J. Ch. 8;i7. As to what is an
opened mine see ^haytor v. Trotter,
(1902) 87 L. T. 33.

{o) Elicu V. diwwdon Slate Quar
rite. 4 A. C. 464 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 811.

(p) EearlofCevdiganr.Armitetg$,
2B.*C. m;26B.B.313;/VMM{
T.Ai<w,34L.J.C%.4)* ; Barrio

LEGAL WASTE.

89

A reservation ot " minerals " includes every substance Ch»p. IV.
which can be got from underneath the surface of the earth,

whether by mining or quarrying, for the purpose of profit, SSJ^"^
unless Uiere i.s ^iomcthing in the context or ia the nstore of the "dMmli,
transaction to induce the Court to give it a more limited
meaning (q). The test, however, is not whether the sub-
stances in qaestion can be worked at a market profit at the
time, but whether they have a use and a value independent of
and separate from the rest of the soil (r). A reservation of
mines and minerals in a farming lease does not indicate an
intention to exclude a custom of the country for tenants to
remove and sell flints which come to the surface in the ordi-
nary course of agricultural operations so as to deprive the
tenant of this right (•).

A tenant for life or years may take reasonable estovers of E.toTer» of
gravel and clay for the repairs of buildings, although the pits JSi^jjS!*'' *^
were not open at the date of the grant or demise (t). There
may be also estovers of brick earth, lime, or the like, for the
reparation of buildings or manuring the land («.). So also
may there be estovers of coal (x). If there are open quarries
of limestone on the land, the traants may wwk tiiem fbr
estovers (y).

A tenant for life or years of land comprising turves has
V. Jiyding, 5 M. & W. 60 ; 8 L. J. ttwy Cb. T. BmMi OmI Co., (IMO)
(N. S.) Ex. 181 ; 62 E. B. 632; A. a 131, 134; 79 L. J. P. C. 31 ;
Qoold V. Onat Wmtern Jtap Cm! BanofdBtmrtuOaCo.Y.Farquhar-
Co., 2 De O. J. * 8. 600 ; Monhu v. mm, (1912) A. C. 864 ; 107 L. T. 332.
Dean and f^r'Jter of Durham, L. R. (r) Earl of Jersey v. A'eath Union
8 C. P. 3; L. J. C. P. 114; 22 Q. B. D. 562 ; 58 L. J. Q. b!

''"i/leay. Partners, Ltd., SIT , per Bowen, L.J . ; Johnstone r.

- ;»9) 1 ' 68 L. J. Ch. 222 ; Crompton <fc Co., (1899) 2 Ch. 100,

mid sc . V. Kennedy, 197; 68 L. J. Ch. 669, fi63; n«

(1907) I ^. ^se, ; 76 L. J. Ch. 162. Skey Jb Co. v. Parsont,n^.

(9) Next V. am, 7 Ch. 690; 41 («) Tmeker v. Lingm; 31 C. D.
L. J. Ch. 761 ; andaee Ortal Wttltm 30; 8 A. 0. 308; 02 L.X CL 941.
B- Iway Co. SiadM, (1901) 3 C*. (t) 2 EoU. Ab. 816.
624, 631 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 847 ; Lord (u) Co. Litt. 53 b, M b ; Saunders'
Provost of Glasgow v. Fairie, 13 case, 5 Co. Bfip. 12 a.
A. C. 657, 669 ; 88 L. J. P. C. 33 ; (i) 2 EoU. Ab. 816.
Staples V. Yuuuy. (1908) 1 ir. H. (y) Purcell v. Nath, I Jon«B, 625 ;
133 ; Skey A Co. v. Parsons, (1909) Mansfield v. Crawford, 9 Ir. Ec.
101 L. T. m : North BrtUA SaO- 171.

60

LEGAL WASTE.

^'bS.i * ^ estovers as many turves as may be

reoKMiably sufficient for consumption on the premises by way

f"^- of flrebote (2) , but ho may not cut turrw for the purpoaea <rf
sale (a), for the right of turbary can only exist as being a
right in respect of an ancient dwelling-house or building (6),
or for a new hoose, erected in continaance of the ancient
house, provided no greater burden is imposed upon the ser-
Tient land (c).

Interest of copy. A copyholder, whether of inheritance or for life, or for

bolder in miaei, „ i i

dv.iisnl, «te. years only, has the same possessory interest in mines ae he
has in trees (d). By custom a copyholder of inheritance may
have the right to break the surface and dig gravel, sand, and
clay, without stint, from out of his own tenement for the
purposes of sale off the manor (e). So also may a customary
tenant have the right by custom to work mines for profit on
his own copyhold tenement (/). But in the absence of custom
tiio tenant cannot, without the leave of the lord, open or work
new mines or work quarries upon his own tenement, nor on
the other hand can the lord, in the absence of a custom, open
and work mines upon the tenement of a copyholder (g).

If a stranger takes the minerals, the copyholder can bring
trespass against the stranger for interfermg with bis posses-
siwi, and the lord may bring an aeticm again ,t the stranger to

(«) De Salit V. Crotsan, 1 Ba. & Jiowier v. Maclean, 2 De Q. F. & J,

Bo. 188 ; 12 E. B. 12 ; Lord Con, - 416 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 273.
town V. H ard, 1 Sch. & Lef. 8 ; (e) Mar,j„it of SalMurf

Howlty V. Jebb, 8 Ir. C. L. 435. HUtdttone, !) H. L. 0. 693 ; M

(a) Coppinger v. OubUni, 3 J. & L. J. C. P. 223 ; Hannur t. CXww^

L. 410; 72 B. B. 81; UouOeg T. 4 Be O. J. ft 8. 686 ; 34 L. J. di.

Jebb, 8 Ir. C. L. 434; Wahi/ItU r. 413;8MiSrea(AT.ZW,(18M}SCh.

Htmlnm, 11 L. B. Ir. AOS. 86 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 466.

(ft) Warwick v. Quten'i Ccllege, (/) J}i»hop of Wincheiter v.

Ox/ord, L. B. 6 Ch. p. 730; Att.- Knight, 1 P. Wms. 406; Parratt v.

Oen. V. Reynoldt, (1911) 2 K. B. Palmer, 3 M. & K. 632 ; 41 R. B.

888, 920 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1073. 149 ; Ihde of Portland v. UiU,

See, as to grants of turbary, IIUl v. L. B. 2 Eq. 766 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 439 ;

Harry, Hayes & J. 688 ; Hargrove see Heath r. DeoHf, mtfm; Inhni

V. Congleton, 12 Ir. C. L. 362, 368. Btvenut Commi**itmtr$ t. Joiteg,

(e) AU..O*a.f, RtjfmMi, tt^ra. (1913) S K. R p. 986 ; 82 L. 7. S. &

{i) Sardleg r. Lord Ormvilk, S p. 787.
0. D. 838 ; 4« L. J. Oh. §73; see {g) BMop •/ rMW^r t.

LE0AL WASm

Cb«p. IV.
Scot. 2.

recover the minerals (h) . The right of tiie lord of • maor to

minerals is a right of property to the mineral substance only, .

subject to which the copyholder has an estate in the soil J^^'^T* **
tht< iighoat. If tiie lord baa remored miaorals, tiie space left mttImMi-

belongs to the copyholder (h).

The lord of a manor, in the absence of custom, is entitled to
every substance which can be got underneath the surface of
the earth in a copyhold tenement for the porpoee of prt^t (i).
Although in the case of copyholds the property in the mines
and minerals is in the lord, the concurrence of the tenant is
necessary, as a rule, in order tii»t the minmrsle may be
worked (A;), and accordingly a copyholder may obtain an
injunction against the lord entering and digging for minerals
under hie tenement (0. It seems open to question, however,
whether the lord is not free to work the minerals without the
concurrence of the tenant, provided that he does so by under-
ground workings and without entering upon or interfering
with the surface (m).

The lord of a ma- oay take gravel, marl, loam, turves, Si^tsfMaf
etc. , in the waste oi anor, so long as he does not infringe
up<m the rights of tL. oouumners. His rij^t exists by reason [j •*
of his ownership of the soil, and is quite independent of the *
right of approvement under the Statute of Merton or at
common law. Th«e ia no ground o* distinction between the
lord's "digging and catting" simply, and "digging and

Knight, 1 P. Wms. 406 ; Grey v.
Duke of Northumberland, 13 Ves.
236; 17Ve8.281 ; Ilournev. Taylor,
10 _ .8t, 189 ; 10 R. E. 26" ; Cuddon
V. Morley, 7 Ha. 204 ; 82 B. B. 65 ;
Duke of Portland y. Hitt, L. B. 2
Eq. 76«;3iL. J.0ii.4W;2ten««y
T. hard OraHrnVt, 3 0. D. 832 ; 4ft
L.J. Ch. 688; Att.-0*n. r. Tom.
tine, 6 0. D. 750 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 654 ;
Inland Revenue Cimmiuioneri v.
Joieey, tujyra (/).

{h) Eanlley r. Lord Oranville, 3
C. Up. 833 : 46 L. J. Ch. 672.

(0 AU.-ami. T. TomliM, 5 C. D.
762 ; 48 L. J. Oh. 604; M 0. D.

150; next v. Om, 7 (%. 712; 41
L. J. Ch. 761.

(*) Hext Y. Gill, 7Cb. 712; 41
L. J. Ch. 763; Eardl^ ^ Lord
GranviUe, 3 0. D. 882 ; 4« L. J. Ch.
672 ; Itdand Revenue OemmiMimm*
r.JoiMg.eupra (/).

(/) AU.'Oen. v. Tomline, 6 C. D.
750; 46 L. J. Ch. 684; Inland
Revenue Commimioiun Jcktf,
mpra (/).

(m) See Bowter v. Maclean, 2
De G. F. & J. 415 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 273;
Inland Revenue ConmUriuMn T.
■foittjl, tupra (/).

62

LEGAL WASTE.

'or purposes of sale." The burthen of proving that

— — he avails himself unduly of this right lies on the tenants. In

the CMS of approrament the onxu probandt in on the lord,
upon the ground that the lord having made a grant over the
whole waste, his right to inclose is treated as a right condi-
tional upon his establishing that he has left sufficient to
enable the tenants to enjoy the right of common granted (n).
Wmu by »it»ra- Any permanent alteration of tho character of land, such as
«( lud. the conversion of meadow into arable land by ploughing it
ap, or arable land into wood, or a meadow into an orchard,
is waste, oven although the value of the land be increased,
because it not only changes the course of husbandry, but
affects the proof of title (o). But a mere temporary alteration
in the ordinary and reasonable course of husbandry is not
waste (p). The enclosure and cultivation of waste land has
been held to be waste by reason of the injury to the evidence
of title (q).

cuUUationof general law a tenant for life or for years is under no

Uod. obligation to cultivate land. It is not waste to suffer arable

ground to lie fresh and not manured, so that it grows full of

thorns : it is merely bad husbandry (r) . To oblige a man to
cultivate according to good husbandry, there must be either an

(n) Hall V. Byron, 4 C. D. 667 ; ingi Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28),

46 L. J. Ch. 297 ; Robtrtion v. ss. 46. 48. and Bdwd. L, PMt I..

Hart„pp, 43 C. D. 484. 499 ; 69 to the Act

L. J. Ch. 553. (p) 2 BoU. Ab. 814; Yiner.Ab.

(u) Co. Litt 63 Lord Darcy tit Waate; Malevnr y. Sfinkt,

V. AtktHth, Hob. 234 ; WorOry r. Dyer, 37 a ; Simnwiu y. NorUm,

Sttwart, 4 Bro. P. C. 377 ; Simmmu 7 Bing. 647 ; 9 L. J. C. P. 185 ; 33

T. Norton, 7 Bing. 647 ; 9 L. J. B. B. 688 ; Cruise, Dig. tit iii.

C. P. 185 ; 33 E. B. 588; Oorivy c. 2, b. 19 ; and see Iliiah v. Luea$,

V. Goring, 3 Sw. 661 ; Tuckfr v. (1910) 1 Ch. 43"; 79 L. J. Ch. 172.

Linyer, 21 C. D. 18; 61 L. J. Ch. (7) Queen's College v. Jlallett, 14

713; }Vat Ham Central Charity East, 4S9; 13 B. B. 293. See

Board v. Eat* London Waterworks observations on this case in West

Co., (1900) 1 Ch. 624 ; 69 L. J. Ch. Ham Charitj/ t. £a,t London Water-

257 ; but see Dohtrty t. Attman, 3 work* Co,, mpm (0).

A.O.i,. 736; Jf*iwr.CMfcsr,(18»2) (r) Bro. Ab. Waate, pL 6; i

2 Oh. 363, 264 ; and Ruth t. Luau, BoU. Ab. 814 ; Button v. Warren,

(1910) 1 Ch. 437 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 172; 1 M. & W. 172; 5 L. J. (N. 8.)

Pemberteti v. Cooper, (1913) 107 L. T. Ex. 234 ; 46 B. B. 368.
716; MidaMtlMAgnflultiinaHoU-

LBOAL WASTE.

Clwp.IV.
8m4i 8*

express contract or a custoiu of the country («). A custom of
the country need not have existed from time immemorial, as
muBt a custom pro|>erly so called. It i^ sufficient if there be
a general usage applicable to farms in the part of th« ooantry
in which tho land is situated (<). Th»! mere relation of land-
lord and tenant creates an implied obligation on the part of
the tenant to manage and use a farm in a hnsbandlike manner
according to the custom of the country where the premises are
situated (x), unless, indeed, the lease or agreement contain
some exinresa covenant or premise inconsistent with such
custom and sufficient to exclude it (y). The removal of hay,
straw, dung, crops, etc., from a farm is waste, where it is
contrary to the coatom of the country, and will be restrained
by injnnotkm («). So also the sowing of lands witii pernicious
crops, each as mustard, is waste, and ' be restrained (a).

The obligation to cultivate lands accorumg to the custom of
the country doea not .apply to a gardra <» meadow let with a
residence (6).

The Court will not, however, enforce by mandatory injunc- co.en»nt to
tion the performance of covenants to cultivate land (c). ^Dfo^b^'

(«) HutUm V. Warren, 1 M. & W.
472 ; 6 L. J. (K. S.) Ex. 234 ; 46
B. B. 368, jwr Lotd WendeydaJe.
See tbe Agrieoltnnd HoMiiigi Aet,

1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28), sa. 26, 46,48.

it) Leigh v. Heuitt, 4 Kast, 164 ;
l>alby V. Iliret, 1 B. & B. 224 ; 21
11. R. 677 ; and see Tucker v.
LingfT, 21 V. D. 34 ; 8 A. C. 608;
51 L. J. Ch. 713 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 941.

(r) I'virley v. Walker, 5 T. E.
373; 2 B. B. 619; Jfaltfax y.
Chambers, 4 M. ft W. 663; Aa/«
V. Saun<ler;3mag. N. 0. 8W; 6
L. J. (N. 8.) C. P. 383; 48 B. B.
823. See the Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1908 ss. 26, 46, and 48.

(y) Huttm V. Warren, 1 M. & W.
466; ftL. J. (N. 8.) Ex. 234; 46
B. B. 368 ; flark t. Boyitor 13
IL *W. 782; 14 L. J. Ex. _3;
67 B. B. 806; Wilkim i. Wood, 17

L. J. a B. 319 ; Tucker v. Linger,
Mifira, and note* to Wiggltiworth t.
JDalUmm, 1 ftn. L. C. M ; and M*
•. 36 of the Agrieultunl Holdings
Act, 1908.

(z) Pulteney v. Shtiton, 6 Yes.

147, 260, n. ; v. (Milnw, 16 Ves.

173 ; Kimpton r. Eve, 2 V. & B.
349; 13 E. E. 116; I'ratt v. Brett,
2 Madd. 62 ; 17 E. B. 187 ; Walton
V. Jvhnaon, 18 Sim. 362 ; 74 B. B.
99; and aee the Agtioultaiml Hold-
ings Aet, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, e. 38),
SB. 26, 46.

(a) Pratt r. Brett, 2 Hadd. 62;
17 E. E. 187.

(i) Johnstone v. Symoni, 9 L. T.
O. S. 835. See, as to cultivation of
glebe land. Bird v. Btlph, 4 B. ft
Ad. 826; 2 L. J. (N. 8.) K. B. 99 ;
38B.B. 382.

(e) Mtugrtm v« Hmm, Si L. T.

iiUBiwtin.

64

LEGAL WASTE.

WMtota

Cli«p. IV. Wante in houacH or huildinKs consists in pulling them down,
- altering their character, or in Buffering them to go to decay (r/).
The faiw of wMte eitwids not only to dweiling-hooMt, bat
to every description of buildings (e). An ulterntion of build-
ings which changes their nature and character is waste, even
•Itiioagh the nine of the premieee be thereby increased.
Thus, the conrerting two eluinibers into one, or i eonverto, or
the converting u hand-mill into a horse-mill, or a corn-mill
into a fttUing-roill, or u mult-mill to a corn-mill, or a log-
wood mill to a cotton mill, Imve been held to be waste (/).
But every alteration by iv Icsspe of tho d(>mis(xl premisps is
not necessarily waste. It i.t in every case u question of fact
whether the act change* the nature of the property having
regard to tho user of the domistnl promises pci inissibie under
the lease. Thus, the conversion of part of a private house into
a shop {(j), and the oonversitm of a chapel into a theatre (h),
have been held not to be waste. But the building of a new
house, where there was one before, may be waste, if it impair
the evidence of title (i). In Smyth v. Carter (k) the Court
granted an interlocutory injunction restraining a man frtmi
pulling down a house and building another which tho landlord
objected to. " It is not sufficient," said Lord Bomilly,
M.B. (I), " that tile house proposed to be built is a better
oaa. The landlord has a right to exercise his own judgment

633: Phifp»r.Jadtiem,KJj.J.Ch. 2 L. J. (\. S.) K. li. 11 ; ;1K U. K.

SiO. 234. See llymitn v. Itosf, (li)12)

{(/) Co. Litt. 53 a. See Kimptvn A. C. p. 032 ; HI L. J. K. U. 10(i2.

V. £ve, 2 'M B. 36a ; 13 R. B. U6 : Cf. SmnM v. ScdUr, H Yeg. 526 ;

Ugmm T. Bo*e, (1913) A. r p. 633 ; 9 B. B. 341 ; Mattntn r. Hort, 1

81 L. J. K. B. 1063. L. R. Ir. 88.

((} Dot T. EaH of Burliugioti. S (A) l/tjman Sou, (1912) A. C.

B. ft Ad. 607 ; 3 L. J. (N. S.) 0^3 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 10G2.

K B. 26 ; 39 B. B. 649. (t) Co. Litt. 63 a ; Cole v. Oreev,

(/) Co. Litt. S3 a; tlretn v. 1 Lev. 309; S. C, nom. Coir v.

Coif, Wms. Saund. 228; City of Forth, 1 Mod. 94- but seo Joiiff

Londtm V. (irceme, Cro. Jac. 182; v. Cliaii»ll, 20 K.i. 5)!); 44 L. J.

JSrj(/ye« V. A'i7(ii(rn, cit. 6 Ves. 689; Ch. (ioH ; Jiolerty v. AUman, 3

6 R. R. 148; Hunt y. Browne, Sau. & A. C. p. 735.

8c 181 ; but nee (Jmnd Caml Co. (t) 18 Beav. 78 ; 104 B. R. 606.

McNtmee, 39 L. B. Ir. ISl. (0 lb.
(0) Doty. JoMt, 4 B. * Ad. 136;

leoal wasts.

«6

IV.

and caprice, wh-tlier there shaU b« uyohMge: if he objects.

the Court will not uUo\' a tenant to poll down on* house and

build anoUiei in ite place " (m).
But in Doherti, r. Attman (n), where land with buildings

which had been used as stores was leased for a very long
period, and the buildings had fallen out of repair, and the
lessaa wm proeeeding to emirert the store* into dwelling-
houses, which would much increase their value, the Court
refused to interfere by injunction.

A covenant to repair being positive as well as negative in its
obligations, the tenant is thereby bound as well n<rt to do an
act amounting to voluntary waste as to repair dilapida-
tions (o). The existence in a lease of a covenant to repair and
to surrender up th* buildings at the end of the term in good
condition, docs not preclude the Court from grunting nn
injunction to restrain the pulling down of buildings just befor*
the end of the term (p).

A mandatory order, however, will not be made to direct a court wiii m
person to repair (q). tniont by

Ane suoenng houses, buildmgs. etc., to go to decay by »•
wrongfully neglecting to repair them is permissive waste. An ^^r,

action on the cuho for perniissivc «-asto lies ugainst a tenant
for Ufa or years upon whoiu an express duty to repair i$
impoted hg th* inttrtment which ertatet the estate (r).
There are also authorities at law to show that an action on the
case for permissive waste can be maintained against a tenant
for life or years, even though no express duty is imposed on
him by the instrument which creates the estate (•). But it
(m)^a«Mei/?.tfort,lL.B.Ir.88; L. J. (N. S.) K. B. 32 ; 41B.Il.^08.

Bro. Ab. WMto ; Cruise. Dig. tit iii
e. 2, 8. 12. But Me Uyman t. Bott,

(1912) A. C. 623 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1062.

(») i A. C. 709 ; and see .V. ux v.
Cobleij, (1892) 2 C'h. 253 ; 61 L. J.
(-'h. 449; Writ Hum CImrity Hoard
V. Eiut London Waterworkt Co.,
(1900) 1 Ch. p. eaS; 69 L. J. Ch.
239 ; Iliiman v. Rov, (1912) A. C.
623 ; 81 L. J. B. 1062.

(o) Doe V. Jadtmm, 2 Sturk. 293 ;
Dot T. Bird, 6 On. * P. 196; 4

(/') Mayor of London v. Iledyer,
18 Vcs. 356.

('/) Jtt.-Urn. V. Stafforda/.ire
County Council, (1906) 1 C'h. 336,
342 ; "4 L. J. Ch. 155 ; see ReytuMt
V. Itarnr,, (1909) 2 Ch. p. ZVl ; 78
L. J. Ch. p. 647; Worct»Ur VoUegi,
ax/ord V. Oxford Ctmal Suviyalim,
(1912) 81 L. J. Ob. p. 3.

(r) Woodhotm t. irfUker, S Q. B.
D. 404 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 609.
(») Wreen Cole, 2 Wms. Saund.

66

LEGAL WASTE.

Clap. IV.
Sect. 2.

PiztutM.

Oenenl rata of
ExeeptioM.

seems to be new settled that, as a genenil rule, in the absence
. of express jigreement, there is no liability on a tenant for
life or a tenant for years for mere permissive waste (0-
Where, however, n lessee who is bound by his lease to keep
the premises in repair, bequeaths the lease to persons in suc-
cession, the tenant for life under the will is bound, as between
himself and the testator's estate, to keep the property in
repair, so far as the want of repair arises during the con-
tinuance of his interest (u). By the custom of certain
manors, the copyhold tenants are bound to keep their holdings
in repair (x), but in the absence of such a custom there is no
obligation on the copyhold tenants to repair their tene-
ments (y).

The general rule of the common lav is that personal chattels
once annexed to the freehold became part of it, and may not be
again severed without the consent of the owner of the inherit-
ance, and Jiat it is therefore waste if a tenant for life or years
who has annexed a personal chattel to the freehold afterwards
takes it away, and the Court will restrain the unlawful
removal (z). But many exceptions have been engrafted on
this general rule, the most important being in favour of trade

()4ti; Ydluirlji V. (lower, \\ Exch.
•i9 J ; 24 L. J. Ex. p. 299 ; Davitt
V. Davit), 38 C. D. 499 ; 67 L. J.
Ch. 1093.

(0 Bame* v. Dowlmg, 44 L. T.
811; /» re Cartimght, Avit t.
Seuyman, 41 C. D. 532 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 690 ; IHmonii v. Nttvbum,
(1898) 1 Ch. p. .12 : 67 L. J. Ch.
p. 17; In re /'nin/ ami llnjihin,
(iy(H)) 1 Cli. 100; (ill L.J. Ch. 190;
In re Larona l^eltlanent, (1911) 2
C... p. 21; 80 L. J. Ch. 010; and
see Pomy v. Blagrave, De O. M. &
O. 448, 468 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 142. A
tenant at wUl or from year to year
is not liable for permienve waste
(Torriano v. Youm,, 0 C. & P. 8;
/Hack-more v. iVIiite. (1S99) 1 (i. B.
p. 300; 68L. J. U. 11. 184).

(«) /II re Betty, (1899) 1 Ch. 821 ;

68. L. J Ch. 435; He dyers, (1899)
2 Ch. 54; 68 L. J. Ch. 442; Re
Varrij ami l/opkiii, (1900) 1 Ch. p.
161 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 190 ; lie Smith,
Bull V. Smith (1901). 84 L. T. 836;
Re Waldrou, (1»04) 1 Ir. B. 240.
{x) 9te BUukmortv. White, {ISOB)

1 Q. B. 293 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 180;
Oalbraith v. VoynUm, (1905) 2 K. B.
p. 205 ; 74 L. J. K. U. 657.

(y) aalliraitli v. I'oyuton, (1905)

2 K. li. 258 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 649.
(z) AVii'M V. Maw, 3 East, 3K ; 6

B. E. 523 ; tiuwleiiand v. Xewtoii,

3 Sim. 460 ; 30 B. B. 186 ; Richard-
ton V. Ardlty, 38 L. J. Ch. 608 ;
Be Htdte, (1906) 1 Ch. p. 410; 74
L. J. Ch. 246 ; Re Lord ChetterJitUCi
,SV«W Kitates, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 241;
80 L. J. Ch. pp. 187, 18b.

LEGAL WASTE.

67

Cli«p. IV.

and agricultural fixtures (a). Chattels which have been
afBxed to the freehold for the purposes of trade {b\ and which
retain the general character of trade fixtures, -r^v : o y^zaoved
by a tenant for years during his term (c). Vho exception has
however been held not to extend to building vrh ■r h havo be»! i
let into the soil, although used for trading pi lyi st s. A tenant
for yeers, even under the most farottraWe circumstances, has
no right (d) to remove any building which he has erected
merely because it is used only for the purposes of trade (e).

The indulgence which exists with respect to trade fixtures T.»«t. tixt««.
extends also to many cases of fixtures put up by a tenant for
years at his own expense for the purposes of ornament or
domestic convenience, such as marble chimney-pieces, pier
glasses, wainscots fixed with screws, hangings nailed to the
walls, stoves or grates fixed into the chimney with brickwork
and cupboards supported by holdfasts and the like (/).
(a) See the Agriculttma Hold-

ings Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 28),
m. 21 and 42; and the Small
HoMingg and Allotments Act, 1908
(8 Edw. 7, c. 36). 8. 47 (4).

(I>) See Meara v. CallenJer, (1901)
■2 Ch. 388 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 621 ; and
Jie Lord ChtKterfield'a SettM Estatrs,
(1911) 1 Ch. pp. 241, 242; SOL. J.
Ch. 187, 188.

(c) Lawtm r. LawUm, 3 Atk. 18 ;
Elwu T. Mfne, 3 Eut, 38 ; 6 B. B.
823; 3 Smith, L. C. 207-210;
Fiiey v. Addenbroke, 13 M. & W.
174; 14 L. J. Ex. 1«9; 67 H. R.
840; U'ardy. Counteat o/ Diidlei/, 5'
I>. T. 20 ; Mear$ v. ValUnder, {1901) 2
Ch. 388 ; TOL. J. Ch. 621 ; JieHuUe.
Btaitie V. HuUf, (1905) 1 Ch. pp.
410, 411 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 248 ; MowUt
V. Hiidton, (1BH) 104 L. T. 400;
Mid ••• the AsrieoHnnl HoMmg?
Act, 1908, i. 21, and the Small Hold-
ings and Allotmenta Act, 1908, 8. 47.

{<!) But 8ee the Agricultural
Holdings Act. 1908, sa. 21 and 49 ;
and the Small Holdings and Allot-
montsAot, 1908, a. 47 (4).

(e) Elwes v. Maw, ,J East, 38 ; 6
E. R. 523 ; 2 Smith, L. C. 208 ;
Whitehead \. Ilennett, 27 L. J. Ch.
474; but see Mears v. CalUnder,
(1901) 2 Ch. 388 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 821 ;
and the Agncultural Holdings Act,
1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. M). as. 21 and 42 ;
and the Small Holdings and Allot-
mentoAct,1908,8.47(4). See as to
rightof miners in certain districts to
remove buiMings erected formining
purposes, Wake v. Hall, 8 A. C. 193 ;
52 L. J. Q. B. 494. See also Ward
V. Cimtem 0/ Dudley, 57 L. T. 20.

If) S,jHierv. Maytr, Fieem. Oi.
248; 2 Eq.Jih. 430 .Btder.Btvow.
I P. Wma. M; Sxparft Quiney, 1
Atk. 477; Laiiion y. Lawton, 3
Atk. IS ; Zee V. SUdnn, 7 Taunt.
191 ; 17 B. R. 484,;,frOibb9, C.J. ;
Rex V. Si. Diin'tan'n, 4 I{. & C. 686,
per Bayloy, J. ; /„ re De f'nlbe,
Ward V. Taylor, (1901) 1 Ch. 623 ;
S. C, under name of Ltigk r
Taylor. (1902) A. C. 157, IM; 71
r. J. Ch. 272; In re Lord Chtritr-
Ml'* SiUUd BMate,, (mi) I Ch.
p. MS; 80L. J. Ch. pp. 188, 189.

6 — a

68

LEGAL WASTE.

Sect. 2.

WhnirHMTiUe.

Chap. IV. Chattels which have been annexed to the freehold by a
tenant for years, if remorable at all, should be removed by him
before the expiration of the tenancy (</) , or at all events before
the expiration of such further period of possession as he holds
the premises under a right still to consider himself as
tenant (h). A tenant whme interest is of an uncertain dura-
tion has a right to remove fixtures after it has expired, pro-
vided he does so within a reasonable time (i). Where a
tenant surrenders his interest to his landlord, the mort^gee
or purchaser from the tenant of his trade fixtures prior to
the determination of the lease is entitled to remove them
within a reasonable time after the surrender (A;) ; but where
a tenant surrendered his lease in order that a now lease might
be granted to him without any provision as to the removal of
the fixtures, he was held to have lost the right to the fixtures,
for a surrender of demised premises prima facie includes
fixtures {I).

Davim or heir- Questions respecting the right to fixtures may arise also
between tenant for life and remainderman, between heir and
executor, between vendor and purchaser, between mortgagor
and mortgagee, between devisee and legatee, and in other
cases (m). In cases between the devisee or heir-at-law and

(jf) Lyd« v. Suuell, 1 B. & Ad. and Leschallai v. Woulf, auj^ra.

394 ; 9 L. J. K. B. 26 ; 35 B. E. (t) See llcfto« v. ]\ u,„ho'k, I'uyh

327; /'(/</'/ V. Arton, L. K. 8 Eq. -9. Artmi, Ex parte Urook, aud In re

626; :i8 L. J. C'h. 619; In re Olaedir Cop}^ Work*, tu/ira (jf).

aiao^Hr (•op,<er W„rfis, (1904) 1 Ch. (k) In rt QUudrr Copftr Wurkt,

823, 824 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 461 ; In re tujra.

IIul»t, (1905) 1 Ch. p. 4 1 1 ; 74 L. J. (/) LtKhalloi v. Wod/, tupra {ji).

Ch. p. 248 ; LttchaUat v. Wool/, (») See Ualtg y. Uanmmtkg, S

(1908) 1 Ch. p. M2 i 77L.J.Ch.p. De O. F. * J. 687 ; 30L. J.Ch.771

3fil. See also the Agricultural (mortgagor end mortgagee) ; South-

Holdings Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. ;/or< Banking Co. v. 7'Ao»n/,«on, 37

28), 88. 21 (i.), 42 (ii.), (iii.), and the C. D. 64 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 114 (mort-

SmaUlluldingsand.-VUotmentsAct, gagor and mortgagee); In re De

1908 Edw. 7, c. ;i6), 8. 47 (4). lallie, U'anl v. Taylor, (1901) 1 Ch.

(/i) U'eeUm v. Wmxlcoek, 7 M. & 523 ; S. C under name Leiyh j.

W. 14 ; 10 L. .T Ex. 183 ; 56 B. R. Taylor, (1902) A. C. IM ; 71 L. J.

606 ; EmparU Brock, 10 C. D. p. 109 ; Ch. 273 ; In rt HuUe, (1909) I Ck.

Btufr. Probgn, U L. T. 118; 406 ; 74 L. J. Oh. 9M (traut tot

aaA»fInrtOk»dirOoff»rW»rk$, life utd nBUBdwBMUi} ; JTomM t.

69

Chap. IV.
Sect 2.

LEGAL WASTE.

the executor the general rule of law obtains with the most
rigour in favour of the inheritance and against the right to
consider as a personal chattel anything which has been
annexed to the freehold (n). In these case^ -o question of
injustice arises. There is no injustice, no fo.feiture of any
property, when a man who is owner in fee affixes his own
chattels to the freehold (o). In cases between the executors Kx«.tor«f
of a tenant for life and the remainderman the claim of the ISdJt^IirfSjL
former to fixtures is favoured (p), but not so much as that of
a tenant for yeirs in eases between landlord and tenant (q).
Successive incumbents of a benefice stand to each other some-
what in the relation of tenant for life and remainderman, but
m respect of the right to fixtures the law is much more liberal
m favour of a deceased incumbent than m the ordinary case of
tenant for life and remainderman (r). In cases between Vendor «.d
vendor and purchaser, or mortgagor and mortgagee, the right
to fixtures may depend on the terms of the contract (*).
Thus, on a sale of land, fixtures upon the premises will pass
to the purchaser by the conveyance in the absence of a con-
trary inteition in the contract (t), so also, a mortgage of pre- Uoh^^
mises will pass the fixtures upon the pr-ialaes, a mortgage of a

riarnei, (1901) 1 Q. B. 203; 70
J'- J. K. B. 225 (mortgagor and
mortgagee); Re WhtUty, (1908) 1
Ch. 619 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 367 (devisee
■nd legatee) ; In re Lord Chater-
JieWi SettM l'itaU$, (1911) 1 Ch.
237 ; 80 li. J. Ch. 187, 189 (executor
and deviaee or heir).

(») See 2 Smith, L. C. 215;
Korton V. Dathuood, (1896) S Ch.
497 ; 65 J. Ch. 7;17 ; /n n HuUe.
(1905) 1 Ch. 410, 411 ; 74 L, J. Ch.
-M8 . In rt Whalty, (1906) 1 Ch.
(il5. 620; 77 L. J. Ch. 8« : /n M
Lord CkfkrJMd'i Stttttd E»la(e».
(1911) ICh. 237 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 187.

(o) Per Stirling, L.J., in In re
fle Faihe, mir.lv. Tat/lor, (1901) 1
Ch. p. .Ml : TO T, J. Ch. p. 294;
In rt Hulte, (1804) 1 Ch. 410. 411 ;
74L.jr.Ch.p.ai«; InnWM^,

(1908) 1 Ch. 615, 620 ; 77 L. J. Ch.

p. 370.

(/') Jforton v. Dat/iwood ; In re
he Ffdhe, supra ; S. C. under name
of Leigh V. Tat/lor, (1902) A. C. 1S7 ;
71 L. J. Ch. 272; and aee /n n
Hulse, and In re Whulei/, tt^ra.

('/) 2 Smith, L. C., 214; Norton
v. Dathwood, In rt Hulte, tupru.

(r) Maninr.Bot,1B.ttB.3y! ;
26 L. J. a 3. 129; 110 H. R. 577.

(«) Ooltgmve ▼. IHat Santm, 2
B. ft C. 76, 80 ; 1 L. J. (o. S.)
K. ». 2.(9 ; see Haley v. Hammtrtlty,
3 De G. F. & J. 591 ; 30 L. J.
Ch. 771, 773; see R^noldt r.
AMy, (1903) 1 K. B. 87, 99;
(1904) A. 0. 466, 470 ; 73 L. J.
E. B. 346.
(*) CkMfnm T. Dime Bmtit,

) • f

70

LEGAL WASTE.

Ch«p. IV.

lease ui by a lessee will carry the fixtures of the property
in leas( , and the power to remove which fixtures was in the
tenant, and fixtures attached by a mortgagor to the property
after the date of the mortgage will also (unless jndcr special
stipulations) pass to the mortgagee (m). This, however, does
not necessarily prevent the mortgagor while in possession
from dealing with such fixtures. Thus if machinery is affixed
to premises in suth a manner as to become a fixture under a
purchase and hiring agreement, by which, as between mort-
gagor and vendor, it remains the property of the vendor, the
mortgagee has the right to take possession of the machinery as
part of his security, although not paid for by the mortgagor
under the purchase and hiring agreement, and although pat
up after the mortgage, and although the vendor had no
knowledge of the existence of the mortgage; but a mortgagee
who does not take possession would fail to obtain an injnne-
tion to restrain the removal of such fixtures unless he proved
that his security was deficient or would become so by such
removal (x). But where a company fixed on their business
premises machinery obtained from the owner under a hire-
purchase agreement under which the owner had power to
remove the machinery on non-payment of instalments of pur-
chase money, and the company -sabseqaentiy witiiout dis-
closing the hire-purchase agreement, created not a legal but
merely an equitable mortgage of their business premises, it
was held that the equitable interest of the owner of the
machinery under the hire-purchase agreement had priority
over the equitable interest of the mortgagee (y) .

(u) Jfetue JtKcbt, L. B. 7 H. L.
481 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 481 ; Holland v.
IMgson, L. E. 7 C. I'. 3l>8, ;j;)7 ;
41 J. C. P. 146 ; riinie v. Wood,
L. R. 4 Ex. 328 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 223;
Southfort Banlinij Co. v. Thompson,
37 C. D. 64 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 114;
dough T. Wood, (1894) 1 Q. B. 713,
718 ; 63 L. J. a B. M4; Hobmthy.
Oorringt, (1897) 1 Ch. 182 ; 6«L. 3.
Ok 114; Jloirft T. Bamei, (1901)
iaB.90Si7OL.J. K.B.ttA;

JlgmoMi T. Athby, tupra {») ; Ellia
V. alover it Co., (1908) 1 K. B. 388,
398, 399 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 281.

(r) KIlis V. O/ow, (1908) 1 K. B.
p. 399 ; 77 L. J. K. E p. Sft7, JMT
Farwell, L.J.

(y) In re Samurl Mien ifc Co.,
(1907) I Ch. iM ; 76 L. J. Ch.
3^ ; and m /« re Morritm, J«tm
and 3f%for, (1913) 10* L. T. «7«;
M T. L. B. 474.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

71

8KCTIOK 8.— PERSONS FOR AND AGAINST WHOM INJDNCTIONB j^"

ARE ORANTED.

An estate for life, whether it be given expressly by the Wante by teiuwt
instrument which creates it, or whether it arises from equit-
able considerations, is always impeachable of waste, unless
the contrary be provided Oy express stipulation (z). The
application for an injunction to restrain a tenant for life or
for years from committing 'waste is usually made by the owner
of the inheritance, but the application may be made by a
remainderman for life, as well as by the owner of the inherit-
ance ; and even without making the persons entitled to the
inheritance parties to the action (a) The intervention of
an intermediate estate for life does not deprive the owner of
the inheritance or a remainderman for life of his right to an
injunction (h). So, also, trustees to preserve contingent
remainders may bring a bill to stay waste against a tenant
for life (c). In Garth v. Cotton, Lord Hardwicke held that
trustees to preserve contingent remainders might have an
injunction against a tenant for life and a remote remainder-
man colluding to commit waste while the remainders were in
expectancy (rf). It would appear that trustees to presenre
contingent remainders may not only institute proceedings to
stay waste, but are bound to do so for the benefit of the con-
tingent remainders (e).

If the legal estate is in trustees upon trust for a tenant for
life, with remainders over, and the tenant for life commits
waste, the trustees have a right to file a bill to stay the
waste, and it is their duty to do so, if parties unborn are
interested (/). A remainderman, however, need not look to

(») CoUr. PesiOH, 1 Ch. B«p. « ; (e) Ptrrot r. Pmot, 3 Atk. 94 ;

WhU/Mdr. Biwit, a P. Wem. 240; Garth v. Cotton, ib. 781 ; 1 Dick.

In rt Bidgt, 31 0. D. 801, 60" ; 58 183 ; 1 Veu. Sen. 524, 546.

L. J. Ch. 263 ; Pardee v. I'ardoe, (rf) Seo miliams y. Duke of

(1900) 82 L. T. 547. Bolton, I Cox, 72; 3 P. Wmfc

(a) MoUineitx v. Powell, 3 P. W. 268, n. ; 4 E. E. 21.

268, n. ; Birdi-Wol/e v. Birch, {e) Stanijield v. Haheryham, 10

9 Eq. 683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 345. Ves. 278, per Lord Eldon ; 7 B> E.

(/() Traey v. Tracy, 1 Vern. 23 ; 409.

Farrant v. LovtU, 3 Atk. 723. (/) Dtfiom y. DtuMm, 7 Bmt.

72

INJUNCTIONS AGAIN8T WASTE.

Order XVI.,
r.87.

ch«,. iv. the trustees for protection (r;) ; and oven where an estate is

— — vested in tnistoos upon trust to sell and divide the proceeds

amongst a class of persons, any mombpr of that class may
apply for an injunction to restrain the tenant for life from
committing waste (p).

Order XVI., r. 37, provides that in all ca.sos of actions for
the prevention of waste or otherwise for the protection of
property, one person may sue on behalf of himself and all
persons having tlio same interest.

The remainderman of an undivided share of the inherit-
ance may have an injunction and an account (/i). When an
estate for life is given with certain directions which impose
an obligation on the tenant for life not to he guilty of waste,
either voluntary, or permissive, the Court will interpose to
prevent either him or his alienee from doing any act which
would be a breach of the condition or obligation ((").

As between coparceners, joint tenants, or tenants in com-
mon, the Court will not interpose to restrain waste (A;), unless
the wrongdoer is insolvent, or incapable of paying to the other
the excess of the value beyond his own share (/), or is
occupying tenant to the other (m), or unless the waste
amounts to destructive waste, or spoliation (n).
Teuaut in tail in A tenant in tail in possession is dispunishable of both
ponijuioa. equitable waste, because he may at any time bar

the entail, and acquire the absolute fee simple (o). It has

Wdste between
cojiarceners,
joiot tt'imntH,
and tenant* in
oommoi.

388 ; Piisr* t. Vmghm, 13 Bemv.
SaO ; U B. B. leO; Ftner r. Vaug-
han, 2 Bear. 409; 50 B. B. 249,
and see Order XVI. r. 8.

{g) Vintr v. Vatighan, supra.

(A) Co. I.itt. 63 b; WhM/Md t.
Iteii'il, 2 P. W. 241.

(i) Kinj/ham v. Lee, 15 Sim. 409;
16 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 74 E. E. 103. See
niaijrtirt v. Dlayrave, 1 De G. ft S.
2 i3; 16 L. J. Ch. 346 ; 76 B. B.
99.

(*) Twort ». Trnort, 16 Ves. 129 ;
10 B. B. 141. See Bailey v. //oiaon,

6 Ch. 182 ; ;fy I.. J. Ch. 270, where
a decree had been made in a parti-

tion rait.
(Q Smallman r. 0»imu, S Bro.

C. C. 620.

(m) Twort v. Tmirt, U Ve«. 138 ;
10 R. R. 141.

(n) Durham and Sunderland Rail-
v ay Co. V. Haum, 3 Bmt. 119;
52 R. h. 56; Artkmr r. Umbe.
2 Dr. & Sm. 4tt ; BaUeg r.
Uch*M, 5 Oh. ISO; 39 L. J.
Ch. 370; Jtib T. PottoH, 20 Bq.
84; 44 L. J. Ch. 262 (mine) ; and
see Qlyn v. HowtU, (1909) 1 Ch.
666. 677 : 78 L. J. rh. .391 (minn
trespass).

^c) Turner v. Wright, 3 Madd.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

been held that an infant tenant in tail in possession has the
same right as one of fall age against the remainderman, and
that his guardians might oommit waste, although by oonrert-
ing the nature of the property from realty into personalty the
next of kin of the infant would, in the event of his death, he
benefited at the expense of tbenin8ind<>-man(j9}. In SavilU'$
case (q), Lord King would not restrain by injunction the
guardians of an infant tenant in tail in possession from
cutting timber, whilst the infant waa in very bad health. After
the death of tlie infant, which took place shortly afterwards, a
bill by a remainderman for an account against his assets
was dismissed (r). An injunction may be had against the
guardian of an infant tenant in tail, if the application be made
on behalf of tlip infant (s). The right to be dispunishable of
waste extends not only to the grantee of a tenant in tail, but
also to the grantee of such grantee (<). In the ease of an
infant tenant in tail in possession the Court will authorise
the cutting of timber fit to be felled in a due course of manage-
ment, but where the infant is tenant in tail in remainder
subject to a life estate impeachable of waste the Court will
only authorise the cutting of timber where the interest of the
succession requires it (x).

78

CUp. IV.
Se«t.S.

A tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct, who has tawtiBWl

'tM pSMiWit]
iltiSi* MttiBOt.

been once in possession, is in respect of the estate of inherit-

ance, which has been once in him, as dispunishable of waste
88 a tenant for life, who is made so by express llmttati<m (y) ;
but he may not, any more than a tenant for life di^unishable
for waste, commit equitable waste (2).
The privileges of tenant in tail after possibility of issue

332;2DeO.KftXM«: »ImJ.

Ch. 601.

ip) I-yddall V. Clavering, cited
Amb. ail ; and see C. A. 1881,8. 42.

('/) Cited Moseley, 224.

(r) Sea TulUU T. TulliU, Amb.
aro; LyddaU r. ClamH»f, ib.
••!TI, n.

(•) lioba^ T. Btitiu, Hud. M.

(0 8 Bms. Ab. an.

(x) RobrHt V. Roberts, Hard. 96 ;
Cmise, Dig. tit. ii. c. 1, g. 32.

(y) Lewit HowUi' case, 11 Oo.
Eep. 79 b; irUliams v. Williamt,
15 Ves. 430; 11 R. R. 337. n. ;
Turner v. WrigH, 2 De O. F. * J
247i 29 L. J. Oh. 001.

(«} Ainhmm t. BM, Freem. Ch.
OS ; S Sw. 173, n. : Timm r. WrigU,
SDea.F.*J.M7.

74

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

ClMp.IV.
8m».S.

Tenaut in tail
with the rcTer-
tkm of tb«
Cnwa.

Tenant in f«e,
■abject to
«x«cntoi7 deriM

Heir by mult-
ing tmt.

Tenant by lease
tor liree iomw.
able for erer.

extinct are in respect of the privity of his estate and of the
- inheritance that was once in him: if, therefore, he COTveys

his estate tn unotlier, each person will be cimaidered as a

mere tenant for life (a).

A tenant in tail with the reversion in the Crown, and
tenant in tail under an Act of Parliament which precludes
the barring of the entail, have all the legal rights and incidents
which belong to a tenancy in tail, and are dispunishable of
waste whether legal or equitable (b). But where the rights
and incidents of the tenancy i i tail are specially qualified by
the provisions of the statute, the Court may feel bound to
interfere to prevent equitable waste (c).

A tenant in fee 8imi)le, subject to an executory devise over
is within the principle of equitable waste, but he is dispunisW-
able of legal wpste (rf), unless the testator has imposed on him
a condition not to commit waste (e).

An heir taking by resulting trust until the happening of a
contingency is within the principle of equitable waste (/).

Where a tenant for life under a will, who was also ap-
pointed executrix " with full and absolute control " over all
the testator's property, cut and sold timber, it was held that
the will did not make the tenant for life dispunishable for
waste, but only entitled her to cut timber in a due course of
management for the benefit and preservation of the estate (g).

The well-known tenure so common in Ireland by lease for
lives renewable for ever was considered by Lord Redesdale so
much in the nature of a perpetuity that he refused an appli-
cation for an injunction to restrain the cutting of timber (h).

(a) Co. Litt 28 a; Bke't cate, 3
Leoo. 241.

(ft) Att.-aen. V. Duke of llarl-
hormigh, 3 Madd. 498, S40; IS
R. B. 273 ; Davit v. Diihe of Mari-
horouyh, 2 Sw. 108 ; 53 B. B. 32 ;
Turner v. Wright, 2 l)e O. F. ft J.
246; 29 L. J. Ch. 6<)1.

(r) Att.-Om. T. Duke of Marl-
boroutjh, 3 Madd. 548 ; 18 K. S. 273 ;
Turner ▼. Wright, 3 De Q. F. ft J.
3«6; 39 L. J. Ch. eOl.

(rf) Turner V. Wright, John. 746;
2 De O. F. ft J. 234 ; 29 L. J. Ch.
598; Tn re Hanhury'i Settled Eitatte,
(1913) 2 Ch. 357.

(f) Bl<de V. I'eten, 1 De 0. J. ft a
346 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 2(M).

(/) Slantfield v. Habergham, 10
Ves. 273 ; 7 B. E. 409.

(S) I'ardoe y. Pardee, (1900) 82
L. X. 347.

(A) Qdvtrt T. Omon, 2 Sch. ft L.
Ml.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE. 75
But Lord St. Leonards, after a review of all the authorities, Olwr. IV.

diaapprovcf' of this decision, and held that a lessee for lives

renewable or ov<>r is not at liberty to eommit destmetiTe
waste (i). But he may, it would appear, commit meliorating
waste (k). He may not, however, commit equitable waste,
though he has been made expressly unimpeachable of
waste (/).

An injunction against waste will be g.antt»d at the suit of WttttlvMry.
a copyholder against his lessee (m), of a copyholder in re-
mainder against a copyholder for life (n), or of a copyholder
against the lord of the manor (o). 80, also, an injunction
against waste has been granted at the suit of a lord of a manor
against his copyhold tenants (p) tmd their under-tenants not-
withstanding his remedy by forfeiture (q), and an interlocu-
tory injunction has been granted, although the defendant
denied tiiat tiie lands were copyhold (r).

A mortgagee in possessimi with a suflScient security may w«.te bj
not commit waste (»); and he is bound, so far as thp rents °"[*yf**'°
and profits in his hands will admit, to do necessary repairs (t) .
If, however, the security is insufScient, he is entitled, ao long
as he is acting bond fide, to make the most of the property for
the purpose of discharging what is due to him. He may cut

(1) Coppinyer v. Ouhbint, 3 J. & M. & K. 632, 639 ; 41 E. B. 140;

L. 397, 411 ; 72 B. R. 81. Blackmore v. White, (1899) 1 Q. B.

(A ) Copidnger v. Oubbint, 3 J. Ic 293, 301 ; 68 L. J. K B. 180, 184 ;

L. 397 ; 72 R. E. 81. but «ee Oalbraith v. PogtOm, (ISOO)

(/} PenOand t. SomerviUe, 2 Ir. 3 K. B. 3M, 266; 74 L. J. K B.

Ch. 289. 849.

(m) Anton T. am, Ctoy, 88, (9) Curfrfon t. Jliirfcy, 7 Hk SM ;

90. 82 B. E. 66.

(n) Cornith v. Xein, Finch, 220 ; (r) CommtMioneri of Ortetufich v.

CahlirM V. BaylU, 2 Mer. 408 ; Bladtdt, 12 Jur. 151 ; 84 B. B.

16 B. B. 189. 866.

(n) Bowter r. Madtan, 2 De 0. (») Fammt T. Lovtll, 3 Att 723 ;

P. & J. 418; 30 L. J. Ch. 273; MaUtt t. Datty, 31 Bwt. 470.

Eardlty v. Lcrd OnmmUe, 3 C. D. See, u to cutting timbw, 0. A.

826 ; 45 L. <r. Ok. 868; aM Inland 1881, •. 19 (i.) (iv.), infra.

Jltvenue Commiuionm t. •/Mny. (<) Godfrey v. Wat»on, 3 Atk.

(1913) 2 K. B. p. 686 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 518 ; Wraqq v. Dtnham, 2 T. 4 0.

P ^8'- Ex- in ; 6 L. J. (K. &)B«. 88;

(p) Bichardt y. NobU, 3 Mer. 673 ; 47 B. B. 366.

17 B. B. 168.- Pmnm Mnmt.S

^* INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

<*NP^ IV. timber, and open mines or quarries, but he does so at his own

'■ — risk and peril. If he incurs a loss, he cannot charge it against

the mortgagor, and if he obtains a profit, the whole of that
profit must go in discharge of the mortgage debt (u). If the
security is sufBcient, and he has no authority from the mort-
gagor (x), he will under similar circumstances be charged
witii hid receipts and disallowed his expenses (i/). If the
mortgage be of an open mine, the mortgagee is entitled to
work it as a prudent owner would do, and he is not bound to
advance money for speculative improvements (z).
S'lSM.'"* ^"^^^ mortgage made by deed after the Slst

December, 1881, the mortgagee, in the absence of provision
to the contrary, may while in possession cut and sell timber
and other trees ripe for cutting, and not planted or left stand,
ing for shelter or ornament (a).

When a mortgagee in possession pending a redemption suit
committed waste, he was ordered on motitm to deliver up the
premises to the mortgagor ( ' ^

A first mortgagee in por ion will be restrained frwn
paying over the surplus rents to the mortgagor instead of to
the second mortgagee (c).

gSri-'i^- * mortgagor in possession of the mortgaged

riot, estate bears no analogy to that of a tenwt for life. A mort-

gagnr in powession is in equity - a owner of the estate, and
may exercise all acts of owne. ip and may commit waste,
provided he does not diminish the security or raider it insuffi-
cient (d), but if the security is insufficient he may not commit
waste (e). In order that an injunction may go against a mort-

(u) MiUett V. Davei,; 31 Beav. 378, 383.

"\ „ («*) Xtktwieh Marker, 3 Um.

(x) Norton V. Cooper, 26 L. J. Ch. ft O. p. 329 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 182 ; 87

470.

121

B. R. 99; and ieo EllU v. aiover

is) Thorneaero/t r. CrodMU, 16 an./ W>/«on, (1908) IK B i».aM>

am. 446 ; 80 B. B. 117; Hood t. 77 L. J. K. B p 2i7 '
Eaaon 2 Oifl. 692. (,) F^rrant v. Lov.H, 3 Atk. 723 •

(z) Rowt V. Wooil. 2 J. & W. 555 ; Humphrty, y. Harrimn. IJ 4 W
22 E R. 208. . ,4 i^. j g,. 244; 21 B. b!

(a) C. A. mi. .. 19 (i.) (iv.). 2V* ; King y. Smith, 2 Hare. 239 •

(6) Hanion v. Derby, 2 Vem. 392. 82 B. B. 93; Sarptr v. Aplin, M

(c) Dalmer v. Dathuood, 2 Cox, L. T. 383. *

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE. 77

gagor in poBsession, it muHt uppflar on the affidavits that the Cfcaj. 1?.
■ecurity is insufficient, or will be rendered insufficient or *«*•»•
scanty by the acta of wMte complained of (/). The mean* -
of the term " insufficieut " is thus expluined by Wigram,
V. C.. in King v. Smith («,):- ■ I think the question which
muat be tried ia, whether the property the mortgagee takes as
a security is sufficient in this sense-that the security is worth
so much more than the money advanced— that the act of
cutting timber is not to be amsidered as substantially impair-
ing the value, which was the basis of the ooatract between the
parties at the time i'k was entered into."

After a decree for foreclosure n»«i, a mortgagor in posses-
sion will be restrained tmm committing waste (A). In a case
where the mortgagor in possession was bankrupt, but no
assignees had as yet been chosen, he was restrained from
committing waste «), but in • case where he was merely in
prison for debt the appUectico for an injonetion was
refused (k).

After demand of possessim made by the mortgagee a
trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor will be restrained
from cutting crops and removing crops cut (I).

The owner of a rent-charge is not in the position of a mort- Owner of reot.
gagee, and cannot obtain an injunction to restrain waste by tu^t in
the owner of the land out of which the rent-charge issues («)
The Court will not grant an injunction to restrain waste at
the instance of a judgment creditor in an action by him
agamst the heir and persWL.! representatire of tiie debtor (n).
If a purchaser obtains possession before payment of the pur- Wm*. k«
chase money, he wiU be restrained from committing waste P"*-*'*^"

whereby the rendw'a secority would be diminished (0). So,

14 L. J. Bx. SM; 31

(/) Hippnlty V. Syencer, 5 Madd.
422 ; King v. Smith, 2 Ha. 244 ;
62 R. B. 93 ; and see ElU$j, CHmr
and Hobtun, lupra.

(•/} i Ua. 244 ; see Harpir r.
Aplin, 44 L. T. 383.

(A) aoodmmr.KiM,%^w.m.

lOS.

(*) Hmw^th^ r. IforrteM. 1 J.

& W. 682 ;
£. B. 238.

(0 BagnaU r. ViUar, » 0. D.
813 ; 48 L. J. (%. AM.

(m) Samdmtnt v. Suthtcm. 61
L. J. Ck. 136.

(») Lmie t. Bnkett. 1 Y. * .J
338; SOB. B. 794.

(o) OrmJ(ford y. Atatandtr, 15
V«i.lS8| WB.B.M; (kmm^

W INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

ckap' IV. altto, where moneyit due under » Mttlement ore unpaid, the
— ^mLt — Court hM juriadirtkm to frvrmt tnj wMte vbiefa mmj tend

to injure the security (p).
Undioru aod The Obligations impooed by the common law upon a tenant
iot life or years, or existing by the custom of the country^
•pply us between landlord and tenant, except in so far as they
may be excluded by the terms of the iigrwment which subsists
between the parties (q). Acts contrary to the obligation of a
tenant to deal with the premises according to the eiuUm of
the country or exprtiss agreement are not, properly speaking,
acts of waste, unless they are also breaches of the common
law, but being of a like mischief with acts of waste, they are
restrained u[)on somewlmt Hiiiiilur principles (r). There is,
however, a distinction in the general principles UTOn which
the Court proceeds in restraining acts of waste done in viola-
tion of an express agreement from those on which it proceeds
in restraining acts of pure waste at common law. In restrain-
ing pure waste, irrespectively of agreement, the Court pro-
ceeds upon the ground of irreparable damage, and will not
interfere if the damage he small (»). In restraining sets of
waste in breach of covenants the Court proceeds up(m the
principle that where parties contract that a particular act
shall not be done, either party has a right to insist upon its
literal performance by the other irrespectively of the question
of damage (t).

V. Strode, 1 Sim. & St. 381 ; 39 (r) Songhurtt v. Dixry, Toth. 254 ;
E. K. 339 ; Petley v. Kwstern Kimpton v. Eve, 2 V. 4 B. 349, 352 ;
Countiet Raihi aij Co., 8 Sim. 483; 13 B. B. 116. See the Agriculturai
H L. J. Ch. 209; Ilumjihreyt v. Holdings Act, «M/>ro.
Uarriton, 1 J. & W. 680 ; 21 R. B. (») Att.-Oen. v. ahtjfield Gas Ot.,
238- 3 De a. M. & 0. 821 / 28 L. J.

{;-) Turkington v. Kearman, LI. Ch. ill ; DohertpY.Attman, S A. 0.
& O. p. 46. p. 7Ja.

(j) WMr.Fhmmtr,iB.1tJai. (I) Dekvig r. AOman, 3 A. C.
74«; 21 B. B. 479; Phmpjf r. 729; and see Me Kacham v. CMon,
Smith, 14 M. ft W. 589; 15 L. J. -">n2) A. C. 107 ; 71 L. J. p. C.
Ex. 201 ; 69 E. E. 761 ; Jit ComtahU , .1 ; O,l,or:^ v. lirwlley, (1903) 2
an-l CransiM, 80 L. T. 164. See Ch. p. 451 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 61 ; For-nhy
the Agricultural Holdings Act. y. Bar.'.-sr, f! iMV}) 2 Ch. p. 643 ■ "2
1908 (8 Bdw. 7, e. 28), M. 26. 46, L. J. Ch. 721 ; EUiHaiw. Jbo^«r,

*»• (1908) 2 Ch. pp. as9. flW: 77

INJUNCTIONH AGAINST WASTE.

A tciinor will) lioIdH land itt u ground ront is us much cn-
litlcil to un injunction to stay waste by his underlessee as if
he bad an estate of inheritance (»). So, alio, may a receiver
liav.' an inj uni t ion to r.-sti uin the tenantt w under-tenanta
from committing waste (x),

Ab between landlord and tenant, no length of abuse «ill
k'ivi' tho ti'nant a right to commit waste. The allowance of
tho ubuse is only l.y the j)ormission of tho landlord, and cun
never be turned against liim by the tenant. The rights of
I lie l. iiant are to be ascertained by the lease (y).

At common law a dean and chapter, heing a corjwn.iion yrmtthf
iiggregale, could alienate their estates as fully and offecfi.ally
as a persw seised in fee. But bishops, deans, parsons, and
other corj)orations sole could not alienate t!;iir estate* so as
to bind their successors without the consent , other partiea.
(Irants made by bishops required confirmation by the dflae
ami chapter, those made by deans required c(mltrmati<m by
the bishop and chapter, those made by arcbdeacons and pre-
bendaries, by the bishop, dean, and chapter, and those made
by parsons and vicars required confirmation by the patron
.ind ordmary (2). Hy the restraining statutes (a), however,
all ecclesiastical persons were disabled from alienating the
possessions of the ehureh for a longer period than twenty-one
years or three lives from the making thereof (6). It was not
enacted expressly by these statutes that the lessees ahould be

79

L J. Ch. 628 J 78 L. J. Ch. 87.
See, further, m to injunctions
itfminst breaches of covenant, j>o»t.
Chap. X.

(") Fmrant v. Lnvtll, 3 Atk. 72.

[j-) .I/(is..)i V. MaMii, Fl. & K. 42'J;
.V<i),.//c V. I.vrd Fvnjal I 'T r. H2.
As u mlo a reteivor i., cana*
should upjily in the first initanos
tu the plaintiff at whose iustaaoe 1m
was appointed to make the neewaty
application to the Oourt f<w relief,
and on \m default may then insti-
tute the proceedings: Parker v.
Dmm, 8 fiesT. 497 ; 68 B. B. 171.

{y) Lurd Courtown v. U'unl, 1
Sch. & L. s : jiud see Flicu v.
(Irijith,8 C. I.. 521; 4H I.. J. Ch.
203.

(2) Phil. Kccl. Law, 1282.

(a) 1 Eliz. c. W, •. *; 18 BKs.
c. 10, •. 3.

(i) See 14 Elk. a 11, 18 EHs.
c. 11. See, howem, now 8*6
Vict c. 27, ib. c. M, ib. c. 108 ;
14 ft Ifi Vict. c. 104 ; 21 & 22 Vict,
c. 57 ; 23 & 24 Vict, c, 124 ! * u.'j
Vict. c. 105 ; 25 & 26 Vitt. c 52 •
31 4 32Vict. c. 114; SI 4 42 Viot!
e. 20 ; aho 8 Bdw. 7, e. 28, «. 46,

80

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

<^IV- made impeachable of waste (c), but it has been long decided

'■ — that ecclesiastical perscms an reskained by the equity of tiie

statute 13 Eliz. e. 10, fnan makiiig leassa dispunishable of
waste (d),

Warieby A parson being at common law able to alienate his glebe

^^^l^"**' land with the consent of the proper parties, might also, with
the consent of the same parties, commit waste; but without
such consent a parson has not at common law any more exten-
sive privileges as to waste in general than an ordinary tenant
for life (e). It seems, however, that in some respects a parson
is more favourably situated than an ordinary tenant for life
or years, and that some acts which are waste in ordinary
cases are not necessarily waste in his case (/).

Timber growing on the estates of ecclesiastical persons is a
fund for the benefit of the Church, and may not be felled
except for the repairs of the ecclesiastical buildings, ttie par-
sonage house, the farms, and the barns and outhouses belong-
ing to the parsonage (g). Timber growing in the churchyard
may not be felled except for the necessary repairs of the
chancel or the body of the church (fc).

There has been some controversy whether an ecclesiastical
person is bound specifically to apply the timber he has cut for
the purposes of repairs towards the actual repairs tor which it
was wanted. From a passage in Ambler (i) it might appear
that Lord Hardwicke was of opinion that a rector or vicar

ib. c. 36, 8. 40 ; 9 Edw. 7, c, 44,
Sched. I. (12), ib. c. 47, Sched.
(6) ; and Richard v. Graham, (1910)
1 Ch. 722; 79 L. J. Ch. 378.

(e) Co. litt 44 b.

((0 Dmn md Chapttr ^ Wartm-
fcr'* eow, 6 Co. Itop. 37 • ; Htnirtg
T. Jkam, of St. PauFt, 3 Sw. 492 ;
19 It. H. 2S9 ; WUktr v. DtaH and
Chajier of WitHktlttr, 8 Mw. 421 ;
17 B. B. 107.

(e) Kniyht v. Mottley, Amb. 176 ;
Htrarhry v. FrTS.-jj, 2 Atk. 216;
Duke of Marlborough v. St. John, t
D«0. ftS. 175; 21 L.J. Clt.3«l;

60 E. B. 48; Bccle$ioitical Com-
miuionert v. fVodehoute, (1894) 1 Ch.
p. 662 ; 64 L. J. cat. 829.

(/) Mm SL Alhan't v. Skip-
•vM, 8 Bmit. SM; 14 L. J. Ch.
247; 88 B. B. ill ; Bird t. Jidph,
4 B. ft Ad. 826 ; 2 Ad. ft R 773;
2L. J. (N.a)K.a»; 88B.B.
382.

(g) Strachfy v. Frami4, 2 Atk.
216; Sowerby t. f'rytr, 8 Eq. 417,
420 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 617.

(A) 3S Edw. 1, itat. 2.

Wire.

Ch.p. IV.
8e(!t..1.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

might cut and sell timber to any extent in order to provide a

fund for general repairs; but the report of the case is too .

imperfect and too doubtful to give the weight of Lord Hard-
wicke's authority io such a proposition (k). The rule on tiie
subject would appear to be that an ecclesiaaticai person may
cut and sell timber for the purpose of providing other timber
more suitable for the intended repairs, so long as no more is
cut than is necessary for the purpose; but that he may not
cut timber to defray the general expenses of his repairs (l).

An ecclesiastical person may continue the working of mines w«t. h,
or gravel pits already open, and which have been lawfully ^^^HH^
opened, but he may not open new ones (,«). Ecclesiastical
persons, whether aggregate or sole, may grant leases for a long
term of years for mining or other purposes with the sanction
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (n). But without such
sanction a parstm cannot make a valid lease of mines upon
hiH glebe, even though he has tlie censmt of the patnm and
ordinary (o).

In the case of a parson the application for an injunction to
stay waste should be made by the patron (p), or by the owner

of the next presentation (q); or, if the patron is a consent-
ing party to the waste, by the ordinary (r). Moreover, the

81

[k] JVither y. Dean and Chapter
<•/ WImhetter, 3 Mer. 421, 428 ; 17
E. B. 107, per Lord Eldon; Dukt
of Marlhorough y. St. John, A IM O.
& S. 180; ai L. J. (a. S81; 90

(0 Jf'ither r. Dean and Chapter

of Winrhetter, 3 Mer. 421 ; 17 R. B.
107 ; Duke of Marlboroui/h y. St.
'hhn, 5 De G. & 8. 181 ; 21 L. J.
< h. 381 ; 90 B. B. 48 ; Sojwiy r.
I ryer, 8 Eq. 417, 4S3 ; M L. J. Ch.
()I7.

[m] Knigkt r. MtmUg, Amk n« ;
IluHihy T. JtiMfrii, IS Q. a fiOl ;
18L. J.Q.B.238 ; 78 R B. 4SI ;
Aw T. Aindt, L. B. 3 C. P. 655,
670 ; and m Beetmattiail Commii-
<i-»nt V. WWrtwwe, (IM) I Ci.

562; 64 L. J. Ch. SM.

(n) S * 6 Vkt a tot, 14 * tC
Tw^ c 101, 31 ft 23 V-ct c. 67,
83 ft 34 XvH. 0. 134.

(o) BecleiiaitiaU Commisnoiiert v.
n'odehoiise, (1895) 1 Ch. 652; 64
L. J. Ch. 329 : and see I/ol</en v.
H'eekes, 1 J. & II. 283 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
35; and BartUtt v. Philippt, 4
Do O. & J. 414.

(P) Xnight V. Mo$»ley, Amb. 178;
*»«»«Sr V. Fraitei$, 3 Aft. 318;
Mfk T. Uigh, (1902) 1 Ch. ]t. 408;
71 L. J. Ch. p. 196.

(?) Sowerby V. /Vjw, 8 Eq. 417 ;
38 L. J. Ch. 617.

('■) Iloldeii V. IVeeket, 1 J. ft H.
385 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 36.

82

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

Cbap. IV. Ecclesiastical Commissioners can maintain an action to
— ruetiain the working of mines in glebe lands otherwise than

under a lease sanctioned by them («). The right to an injunc-
tion to restrain a bishop from wasting the property of the
see resides in the Attorney-General, suing on behalf of the
Crown, the patron of bishoprics (t), and pomibly to name
extent in the metropolitan (m). So a dean and chapter may be
restrained at the suit of the Crown, but not at the suit of a
lessee holding under them, except in so far as he may have
derived any right or interest under the agreement (x).
DiitnrbiBg The Court of Chancery had no jurisdiction to interfere at

ebnrelijrud. gyjj qJ ^ parishioner to restrain the incumbent from

making alterations in the church, churchyard, or ther land
in his possession in right of his church, mr.jters wichin the
province ot the tieclesiastical Court (y). But it seems that
the High Court may, as ancillary to the Ecclwiastical Court,
grant an injunction to prevent an act in the nature of waste
being committed (z). The mortgagees of a chapel and burial-
ground were restrained from destroying family graves, and
removing or defacing tombstones, or obliterating or defacing
inscriptions thereon, in the burial-ground attached to the
chapel (a). So also an injunction was granted at the suit of
a bishop to restrain a corporatidn from disturbing s church-
yBrd (h). The lay rector of a parish, in respect of his free-
hold property in the parish church and churchyard can main-

(«) Eccleikutical CommiuioHtrt 4 De O. F. & J. 117, 123. Sm Wood-

Wodthnwe, (189S) 1 Oh. US ; 64 mnn t. SoUiutM, 2 Sim. N. 8. 204;

L. J. Ch. 329. BaUeH t. CMy, 41 0. D. 507 ; M

(<) Knight v. Mo$rley, Amb. 176 ; L. J. Ch. 849.

M'ithfr V. Oean ami Chapter of (j) Marriott v. Turplei/, 9 Sim.

mnchttler, 3 Mer. p. 427 ; 17 K. 1!. 279 ; 7 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 245 ; 47

107. R. K. 241 ; Caniinalt v. .\Mi/neur,

(h) n'Uher v. Oean and Chapter 4 I>e G. F. A J. 117 ; Phil. Eocl.
o/ Winchester, ib. liSW, U22. Hut see Batten v. fledyt,

(i) Wither v. Dean and Chapter 41 C. D. 507 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 549.

of Winchester, 3 Mer. 421 ; 17 B. VL. (a) Mortland v. Richardim, 24

107; Herring y. Dtan and Ckapter Dear. 33; 26 L. J. Ch. 690; 116

(/ St. fiauet, 3 Sv. 493 ; 10 B. B. B. B. 18.

3M. {>■) Bishop of Durham v. C'or-

(y) KaH FUmeiBiam v. Moore, 'i poratum of Ntwcattk-upon-Ti/ne,

Ir. &{.«»; Oar4i)mar.Molyn*ux, I »et. 599.

EQUITABLE WASTE.

tain an action in the High Court against a trespasser (c).

The Court will not exercise its jorisdiction to compel by

mandatwy injanctton the natoration of a churchway at the ^^.Sdk^
suit of a parishioner when the Ecclesiaatical Court has juriB- ° *
diction to order the restoration (rf).

Chap. IT.
S«et. 4.

SECTION 4.— EQUITABLB WASTB.

The estate of a tenant for life or years is often declared by t«mi to lif.
the instrument which creates it to be " without impeachment
of waste. " The effect of the clause at law before the Judica-
ture Act, 1873, 8. 25, sub-s. 3, was not only to allow a tenant
for life or years to commit waste, but it was a special power
permitting him to appropriate the produce of the waste to
his own use (c). A Court of equity, however, considers the
excessive use of the legal power incident to an estate unim-
peachable of waste to be inequitable and unjust, and therefore
controls it (/).

It appears that if an owner in fee settles his estate on
himself for life with remainders over, he will not be allowed
any larger privileges than he would hare had if the settle had
been a stranger (g).

Waste which will be restrained as being an unconscientious
exorcise of a legal power, is called equitabh watte. An act
may amount to equitable waste although tiiere is a total
absence of malice. " The presence or absence," said Lord
Campbell, in Turner t. Wright (h). "of a bad motive will
not enable ua to draw any satisfactory line between what is to
be considered malicious and what is to be ooosidered equitable

(r) liatUii V. <h>ly(, 41 C. D. W,
.''16; 58 L. J. Ch. 549.

('0 lb.

(f) Lewit DoivM cam, 11 Co.
Sib; Kektwiek r. Marktr, $ Mmo.
& O. 327; ai L. J. Ch, 182; 87
R. B.89.

(/) Marktr y. Marker, 9 Ha. I,
1< ; 30 L. J. Ch. 246: 89 B. B.

J. fi04, «24 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 724. Bm
Bakr V, atbrij/kt, 13 C. D. 1T»,
186; «L. J. Oh. 65.

(g) FitecHU T. Spicer, 22 Bear.
380; aSL. J. Ch. 589; 111 B. E.

8« Fane v. Lortl Bam-ird, 2
Vera. 738,Prac. Oh, 464 ; Barry v.
Barry, IJ. & W. 652.

(*) 2 De O. P. * J. 234, 2M.

84

EQUITABLE WASTE.

Chap. IV. waste, and no line to regulate the interposition of a Court of
— — equity by injunctioi can well be drawn otiier than the recog>
nised and well-eetabliahed line between Ieg»I and eqaitable

waste (»■).

Judiwtnra Act, It is declared by the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 3,
rab^s.^ 0° estate for life without impeachment of waste shall

not confer or be deemed to have conferred upon the tenant for
life any legal right to commit waste of the description known
as eqaitable waste, unless an intention to confer such right
shall exiH^sly appear by the instrument creating such
estate.

Where an estate was devised to a person who was also
appointed sole executrix of the testator's will " with full and
absolute power " over all the testator's property during her
life, the Court held that the words " full and absolute power
over the estate," did not render the tenant for life disponidif-
able for waste, but merely conferred on her largs powers of
management (k).

Pulling Jown 'fhe csse which is frequently referred to as being the lead-

maMion-hoaM ... , -.i

or other ing decision on the subject of equitable waste is well known

buildingi. ^j^^ name of Lord Barnard's cane (l). It is however far

from being the earliest decision on the subject, as it appears
to have been a well-known branch of equitable jurisdictim
in the time of Lord Nottingham. In Abraham v. Buhb (m),
we find that great judge treating it as a settled point that if
a tenant for life does waste maliciously, a Court of equity will
restrain him, though he had an express power to commit
waste. He cited the Bishop of Winchester's case and Lcufy
Evelyn's case as instances in his recollection in which the
Court had so interposed. In several other cases about the
same period the Court declared that it would restrain both
tenant for life without impeachment of waste, and tenant in
tail after possibility of issue extinct, trom emnmitting
"wilful," "destructive," "maUcious," "extravagant," or

(0 Sea AHom t. AHm, 1 Vw. {[) Free. Ch. 4M ; 1 Sdk. 161.
Sen. 265. (m) SXq.Oa.Ab. 767; FrMB.

{k) Pario* V. FitrdM. (1%.' 82 Oh. 68; SSbow W,
L. X. MT.

EQUITABLE WASTE.

" humoreome " waste (n). These determinations led to the

remarkable case of Vane v. Lord Barnard (o). Lord Barnard,

who was tenant fbr life without impeachment of waste of
Raby Castle under the marriage settlement of his son, wift
remainder to his son, in consequence of some displeasure
which he had cmceired against him, got workmen together
and stripped the castle of the lead, iron, glass, etc., and was
proceeding to pull it down, whereupon Lord Cowper granted
an injunction and directed an inquiry as to the amount of
damage actually done, and ordered it to be repaired at the
expense of Lord Barnard. The ground upon which the
doctrine was as yet founded, was said to be the destruction of
the inheritance, and upon this principle Lord Hardwicke said
that if a tenant for life without impeachment of waste were
to pull down farm-houseb he would restrain him as much as
if it were the ease of a mansion-house (p).

Lord Hardwicke observed that if the decision in Lord
Bamard'B case could be made use of to permit a son to call
his father into a Court of equity for every alteration he might
make m puiling up the floor of the house, etc., it would be
better for the public that Raby Castle had been pulled down
than that such a precedent should have been set (q). If the
acts complained of therefore are of a trivial nature, the Court
will not interpose. To obtain an injunction the plaintiff must
prove that the r'^fendant's acts are prejudicial to the inherit-
ance (r).

The cutting of timber planted or left standir- for ornament n ^^il

comes within the principle of equitable waste. "The presumed
will and intention of the settlor or devisor being the ground
for the mterference of the Court, the Court does not proceed
upon any fancied notions of its own as to whether or not
timber may be ornamental (s), but confines its protectioB to

(n) ]Villiam$ v. Day, 2 Ch. Ca.
32; Cooke v. WliaUy, 1 Eq. Ab.
400 ; Anm., Freem. Ch. 278.

(») PlM.0k.4Mi 1 giift. 161;
2 Vera. 738.

(p) 1 Tm. Sea. MS. Sw Ao«
SomtrtiUt, 2 Bq. CSa. Ah.,til. Waat*.

4.

pL8.

(f ) fitn T. rtm% 1 V«* 8m. 681.
(r) Mmuer. Oobley, (1892) i Ok.
253 ; 6! L. J. Ch. 449.

(t) Marker v. Marker, 9 Ua. 1,
17; 20 L. J. Ch. 246; 89 B. S.
SM; MirklHAmaU v. MiMMmmt,

86

EQUITABLE WASTE.

tre«s which have been planted or left standing for ornament
or shelter by him {t). However ornamental in fact trees may
be, they will not be protected unless they have been dedicated
in some way or other by the settlor or devisor to the purposes
of ornament or shelter (u). Trees, on the other hand, which
have been treated as ornamental by him irill be considered
by the Court to be ornamental, whether they are or are nofc,
in point of fact, ornamental. The taste of the grantor is bind-
ing upon the tenant for life, and the Court will not inquire as
to what is beautiful or not. All it has to ascertain is the
intention of the settlor or devisor (r). Where land is taken
in exchange for settled property, timber left standing for
ornament or shelter on the land taken in exchange cannot be
cut down by the tenant for life ((/).

Trees which have been planted or left standing for the
purpose of excluding objects from view (z), or for the purpose
of shelter and protection to a mansion-house (a), are regarded
as ornamental timber. In Coffin v. Coffin (5), Lord Eldon
refused that part of the order for an injunction which had
been granted by the Vice -Chancellor, restraining a man from
cutting trees which protected tlie premises from the effects
of the sea. The reasons of his lordship are not given, and
it is difficult to see why that part of the order was refused.
It has been said that the protection of the Court is confined
to trees planted solely for ornament or shelter, and that trees
which have been planted tot profit as well as f<Hr <wiuunent

1 Da G. ft J. S24; 26 L. J. Ch.
721. 9MWM-Blut,i€at.Wcl$iUg,
(1903) 2 C%. 664, 660 ; 73 L. J. Ch.
i6.

(0 Marhtr v. Marltr, 9 Ha. 1,
17; 20 L. J. Ch. 246; Ford v.
TynU, 2 De G. J. & 127 ; HVW-
Blundtll v. Wolitlr'j, iuj.ra.

(u) lb. ; WUliamt v. Macnamara,
8 Ves. 70; HalliueU v. Philiiijn, 4
Jur.N.S.607; 111 B. B. 879.

(z) WombwM T. AtUnyM, 6 Yaa.
110, n. ; MarquU of DotimAir* t.
acmdy*, ib. 110; F»d v. Tpiit, 8
D« a. J. * H. 1S7 ; WM-Bhmm v.

Wd^Iey, (1903) 9 Ch. 670 ; 73
L. 1. Ch. 4S.
(y) il««6y T. HiMdb, M L. T. M7.

(*) Dtai T. Merry, 16 Ves. 376 ;
10 B. R. 200 ; Campbell v. Atlgood,
17 Beav. 627.

(a) t'hamherlayne v. Dummer, 1
Bro. 0. C. 166 ; 3 ib. 549 ; Tamworih
V. Lord Ferrern, b Ves. 419; Mar-
quis of Doii~mhirt V. Sandyi, ib.
107 : Coffin T. Coffin, Jae. 71 ; 23
B. B. 1 ; CkMQMf AOgoed, 17

(»} Jm. 71.

EQUITABLE WASTE.

87

or shelter will not be protected (c) ; but this statement seems chap. IV.
too wide (<!)•

The Court has often muoh difficulty in determining whether
trees have been planted or left standing for ornament. The
question in all cases of the sort is a question of fact, and the
muin difficulty lies in the evidence necessary to establish the
fact (c). Tiie existence of a mansion-house will in many
cases supply the Court with evidence on which to determine
the point as to the ornamental character of timber, for trees
when in the neighbourhood of a mansion-house will be
assumed to have been planted for ornament (/).

It is not, however, necessary that timber should be con-
tiguous to a house or park in order to entitle it to tiie protec-
tion of the Court as being ornamental {g) .

The Court has greater difficulty in determining that trees Onuuncnui
have been left standing or preserved for <Hiiamait, than in
determining that trees have been planted for ornament ; but
the leaving trees standing beyond the usual and provident
period of cutting, the clearing out of trees and surrounding
them by pleasure walks and seats, and other circumstances,
from which an inference arises that the settlor or devisor
regarded the trees with other views than as mere subjects of
profit, may be considered &^ primd facie evidence that trees
were left standing for shelter or ornament (/t). It is doubtful
whether the Court can ever go back beyond the time of an
absolute owner of the estate for the purpose of ascertoiaiBg
whether timber is to be treated as ornamental (t).

(c) Hailiwell v. Philipp$, 4 Jur. (</) See Marquit of Downihirt v.

N. S. 60S; lllB. B. 87»; and aee Simdy$,6\oa. 110; and Wombwdl

MiekUthwait T. Mkt-JethuHia, 1 De v. litUa$yH. 6 Ves. 110, n.; WM-

O. ft J. m : S6 £•. J. Oh. 729. mmkdtll y. HVitefay. mtyra.

(iQ 8m Adoym v. Nugent, 2S (A) LuMngUm t. BUdmnt, 6

L. B. Ir. 14S; Ford t. Tynte, i. Madd. 149; 22 S. B. 261. See

De O. J. * 8. m, 133. UaUiu ell v. I'liUipps, 4 Jur. N S.

(e) Marker v. Marker, 9 Ha. 17 ; 607 ; 1 1 1 H. B. 879 ; and fee Weld-

20L. J. Ch. 246. Blundell y. li'ol»eley, (1903) 2 Oh.

(/) Mickltthivati v. UickltthwaU, 668, 669 ; 73 L, J. Ch. 47.

1 De O. & J. 504, 526 ; 26 L. J. Ch. (t) Micklethwait v. MickUthvxiit,

729. Aa to evideiioe, see W«id- 1 De Q. & J. 504, 513 ; 26Ii. J. Ch.

mmMl T. Wolttey, (1903) 2 Ok 7».
8M,M1i TSJU J. Oh.iA.47.

88

EQUITABLE WASTE.

Although the Court will, as a general rale, abstain from

'■ — exercising a judgment aptm matters of taste, yet where • deed

of settlement provided that enough of the most ornamental
timber should always remain to leave the beauty of the place
unimpaired, and the deed evidently referred to the state of the
proj)ei ty at the time of its execution as the standard of beauty,
the Court directed an inquiry whether certain trees could be
cut without impairing the beauty of the place as it stood at
the date of the settlement (A;). " Although there will be, no
doubt," said Turner, L.J. (/), " great difficulty in executing a
trust or enforcing an injunction to preserve the property
according to a certain standard of beauty, the difBculty is not
such as it is beyond the power of the Court to grapple witij."

The question what a prudent owner would do in the proper
and ordinary course of management of his property, is not the
measure of the obligation which attaches in a Court of equity
upon a tenant for life without impeachment of waste with
reference to timber planted or left standing for ornament.
But if there be evidence to show that a wood planted or left
standing for ornament had been resorted to by the absolute
owner for the supply of timber for repairs or sale, a tenant
for life without impeachmmt of waste may do the same, pro-
vided he acts as a prudent owner in a due course of manage-
ment would do (m).

Thinniiijoi In V. Copley (n), where the defendant by his answer

stated that he had cut down trees for the improvement <rf the
estate. Lord Erskine granted an injunction against cutting
down ornamental timber and trees planted in the situations
of others cut down, but without prejudice to tiie thinning of
trees for the sake of ornament (o). So also if a tempest has
produced gaps in a piece of ornamental planting by which
unequal and discordant marks and divisions were occasioned,

(*) JIdfiw T. Martier, 9 Ha. 1 ; Barry, IJ. & W 054

20 L. J. Ch. 246; 89 E. B. 303. („) See uowsect. 28.8ub.8ect. (2),

(0 lb. 9 Ha. 18:20 L. J. Ch. 252. of the Settled Land Act. 1882.

(m) fWdv.Tynle.iDeQ.J.&a. which forbids cutting dowa.

127 ; and sec Buktr v. Sebright, 13 except ic proper thinniiix. tNM

C. D. 185; 49 L. J. Ch. 65. whWl hav* riwtrf W

(n} 3 Madd. 626. n. See Barry v. imrnrnmat aafo tin Act.

EQUITABLE WASTE.

89

the Court will not restrain the cutting of a few trees, M M to '^'"P
prodace a uniform and consistent appearance (p). *'

The cutting of saplings or young traes, not fit tor ^ pur- TomgUM* Md

poses of timber, comes within the principle of equitable waste. "P"^
The mere fact, however, that trees are being felled of younger
growth than would be felled by a prudent owner in the course
of a husbandlike management of the estate, is not enough to
induce the Court to interfere with the legal power of a tenant
for life without impeachment of waste. To come withia the
principle of equitable waste, a case of spoliation or destructiim
must be made out (q). In Hole v. Thomas (r), Lord Eldon
oimsidered the cutting of saplings and timber treea at un-
seasonable times to be » auiMcioas destruction, and granted
an injunction («).

The cutting of underwood of an insufficient growth or at Vuitnmi,
unscasmable times ecmtes also within the principle of equit-
able waste, when it amounts to a destruction or spoliation of
the property (0 and generally, it would appear that the
principle of equitable waste extends to any ac. which amounts
to malicious waste, and goes to the wantoa daatraetkn and
spoliation of the property (u).

If the tenant for life be expressly bound to keep certain Tenancy for Uf.
buildings in repair, this qnalifles the gift to him without ^C^^'mv
mipeachment of waste. The estate for life " without impeach- ^ v»«fc<i
ment of waste " is sometimes qualified by the clause " except
voluntary waste," or wwds to that effect. Ibis was ^ oaaa
in Garth v. Cotton (s). In his jodgmeot Lord Hardwieln mid

(p) See Lard Mmkm t. Lard 1 Bra. C. 0. 166 ; 3 i\ M» ; ANtfonii

Stanhope, 3 Madd. 523, n. v. SomerrilU, 2 Ir. Ch. 289.

(y) ffBrimy. 0'J9r»fn, Amb. 107 ; (() HoUv. Thorr.ai, 7 Ves. 689;

PaHinytoii't case, 3 Atk. 216 ; Afton 6 R. E. 195 ; Bryilgn v. Slepheni,

T. Aston, 1 Ves. Sen. 265; Lady 6 Madd. 270; 23B. B.217; 2 8w.

titralhmore V. Bouet, 2 Bro. C. C. 160,n.; Dmmi T.fvyim, L £. 7 Xa

188 ; 1 E. E. 76 ; Smythe v. Smythe, 143.

2 8w. 252; 19 B. B. 72; Lord («) Sm AMm T. A»lm, I Ym.

Tamworth v. Ftrrtn, 6 Ym. 418 ; Swi. M« ; BMUf ^ Ltmdm ». Wtk,

UJMunU T. Pkmfp$, 4 tvt. M. & IP. Wbh. M7.

608; 111 B. B. 87B. («) 3 Atk. 761; 1 Teik Ml; 1

(r) 7T«s.Me; 6&B.1M. 1^188.

(«} 8w Chttmbwimtn* t.

90

EQUITABLE WASTE.

Clup. IV.
.4.

Tnutow of a
tan " vithout
impcadimuit
of

T«ny with
iapMAomit o(

WMtO.

LimilBtinn to
tenant for life
without im-
p«MhmeBt<rf
waite mad*
subject to
trustee for a
term.

incideutalljr that timber could not be cut, but no relief wm
sought in that case against the tenant for life. In Vincent
V. Spicer(y), Lord Komilly, M.R., considered the words
" voluntary or permissive waste " qualifying an estate for
life without impeachment of waste, at mwely Umtamount to
" s])oil and destroy," and held that the tenant for lite or his
assignee were entitled to cut such timber and other trees not
planted or standing for ornament, as an owner of an estate in
foe, having due regard to his present interest, and to the
permanent advantage of the estate, might properly cut in a
due course of management.

The terms " without impeachment of waste " as applied to
trustees of a term for special purposes, have a different sense
from that of the same words annexed to a tenancy for life.
Trustees of a term without impeachment ot waste are bound
to a more provident execution of their powers than a tenant fur
life, and muet act in their trust as the Court itself would act(z).

It probably makes no difference whether the estate which is
made unimpeachable of waete is freehold or a long term of
years, determinable on the death of the lessee for life (a).
But it seems that if a long term of years be declared at its
creation to be unimpeachable of waste, and be afterwards
settled on one for life, with remainder over, although the
tenant for life is not expressly declared to be unimpeachable
of waste, he will be so treated as between himself and tiitee
claiming the rest of the term (b).

The limitation to a tenant for life without impeachment of
waste is sometimes made by the settlement subject to a power
in trustees for a term to enter and cut timber. In a case where
a discretionary power to this effect was vested in trustees for a
term, the Court protected them in the exercise of their power,
there being an absence of all mala fides, or of any wanton or
unreasonable exercise of their discretion (e). So also where

{y) 22 Bear. 380 ; 2S L. J. Ch.
689; 111 B. B. 402.

{z) Marijuu of Downtkir* T.
iytindyt, 6 Ves. 107, 114.

(u) Oarth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. 7fll ;
1 Vm. Sen. 624, U6 ; 1 Diok. 183.

{b) Bridga v. Utepheru, 2 Sw.
160, n. ; 23B.R.217. SeeMarquii
of Downihire v. Sandyi, 6 Ves. 107.

(c) Ktkeuiich y. Markrr, 3 'iiae,

ft o. 311 : ai L. J. Gk. 18S: S7

B.B. W.

EQUITABLE WASTE. 91

ttie limitation to u tenant for life without impeachment of Ok^. I?,
waste waa aabjeot to the power in traateee witii the oooaent of ^Stt

the tenant for life, to cut timber for the purpose of paying off
a mortgage debt, the Court, upon the construction of the
settlement, restrained the tenant for life from cutting timber
for his own benefit (d).

A tenant for life without impeachment of waste will not be Tenant foriih
permitted to gain any undue advantage from the exercise of a pncbment of
poww or tniet for tale or eidumge ot the aettied eatates.
Thus in Lady Plymouth v. Archer (c), lands were devised »d»anu«efrom
uiwn trust for sale, the produce to be mvested other lands power of nu or
to be purchased and to be to the use of Lord Archer for life p"^"
without impeachment of waste, with remainders over, and
there was a declaration that the rents and profits of the lands,
until sold, were to be to the use of the person entitled to the
estate to be porehaMd. L<»d Ardmr wm hdd not wtitied to
cut timber on the lands devised, because, as he would have a
right to cut timber on the estate to be bought, that would be
giving him double waate. In • ease, Bwrgt$ Limlb (f),
before Lord Eldon, trustees for the purchase of real estate
were made <>u < dssively tenants for life without impeachment
of waste of the estate to be purchased. An estate having been
purchased with a disproporticmate quantity of timber upon it,
the question was whether the monies had been properly laid
out, and whether an injunction could be sustained against the
first tmant for life in entting ttmbor. Hii* qaertka Lord
Eldon would not decide, the frame of the record not being
such as to bring it properly before him; but he said that if the
timber bore a nrj eonsiderable proporticn to tito ndae of the
whole purchase, the tenant for life, who was me of tiie
trustees, could not be permitted to cut it (g).

A tenant for life in remainder without imptiuLltment of Wutob;
waste, may not eMnmit waste before his own estete has fi^len '
into possession by leave of a tmant for life in poaseaaiaa who

(d) Briggt T. Earl of Oxford, 6
De O. ft Sm. IM ; 1 Da d. IL ft

o.ses: tiL 4.c%.m; nB.B.

117.

(«) ! Bro. 0. 0. \S9.

(/) leVwLm; 10 3. B. 100.

(g) IK MYm.187 : lOILS. lao.

M BQUITABLE WASTE.

«»JjlJ-nr- isimpMelwblAfor wute (A;, o also the Court will
: — by injunction if th« toumt btt lilt mad ttie NnamdnraHHi in

fep, subject to conti-igent e^4tates, urn committing wasto in
collusion (<), or where waste is being committed by a
tenant Iw life in poiMMton, who has the nnt fwM mM»
of inhci'ituncn in K inainder, but aubjeet to intmroMdiat*
contingent estattiH (k).
K.ute for life Wh«re a uttlMoent ia directed to he executed for the uur-

uuder uecutorj , *^

trm. pose Of carrying out an executDi v Mv t, the estate of the

JodiciBT. Act, tenant (or life will not as u . il , .i .k', dispunishable for
Mb4.<. waste {I); but it is otherwise in tasun Aiicre the r ust is eie-
cuted by cutting down worda of inltorttanee to an aatate iet
life in the first taker (m).
mSw^X^oI Court will order ornamental timi>er, ox timber «Ueil

tiMCWt. torm a ahi^r or defence to a nianaiai- house to be friled,
wbww it is decaying or injurious to adjoining tre*-^, or where
It ia necessary for the well-being, lalubrity, u. ■ comfo> i of
the imnaion-houae that it should be cut, or wlMre aiu other
sufficient reason can be shown why it ahovid be eat (n). A
tenant for lif - .. ithout impeachment of waste lAo tftmitfl
equitable waste will not be allowed to derive any bvaeflt thMe-
fr<Mn (o); unleas it a^MMr that the timber ae eot by has is
such as the Court would u\)on a pioper applicatir have
directed to be cut for the preservation and improvement of the
remaining (nnamoital timber, in which ease he wki be alknrad
to retnn the proceecb of sale of tiie bmm (p).

(h) Lady Evelyn's case, cited 2 («) See Cnmpbeli s. A -id, 17

Preem. 53; 2 ^>r. 172 ; Dick. 309 ; Beav. 623; Ut.-Ufn. v. hnke „f

hlmnwiy. buttOf OmVi^tiiHA. Marlborouyh j Madil 280; 1,n ii li.

Dick. 209. 273; Luthitu/Umy. lioldero,ailtid<\

(•) (i,:rth V. Cotton, 1 Dick. 183 ; 149 ; 22 B. B. 261 ; Ford r. Tynt^,

1 Ves. >oii. 521, MS ; 3 Atk. 761. 2 De O. J. 4 8. 127, 129 ; Bmktr v

(*) n uiiann ». Dukt of BoUom. I Mr^U. » C. S. ITS. IM; «

Cox. 72:4B.B.21;«reA0^)</iv. J. Ok «5.

HW/*, 9 Eq. 683 ; 38 L. J. CiL S4S. (o) LugKingtm t. SoUrrv, 15 Be«v.

(0 Davenjtort t. Davenport, 1 H. 1, 7 ; 21 L. J. C*. .11 ; U-elU$lty

ft M. 775 ; Stanley v. Cuulthunt, WtlUttey, 6 Sim. 497 ; 38 R B '

10 Eq. 259 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 650. (;.) But as to tlie rigbt ot m

(m) lb. See Banke»v. Le Oetpeticer, remainderman to iwquin the -it-

10 Sim. 570 : U Sim. 508 ; 9 L. J. tilig to be done under the •

(N. S.} Ch. 185; 51 B. R. 313. viaioB oi th« Court, ne m0«.

raJUMCTlONb AGAINST WASTE.

Cktf. IT.

HMt. 5.

he tanqoire

no. — Accovvi.

Although a tenant for h'fo inimp<,i' ! - f( i .s) vs jH t>.

Ill owwi to kwp the proceeds of orna: ,i i.!al uiUt -ut by *

h:in. vbare tlw timb«r Meat i* audi m tiie Court wMild itwlf '
(litci : 'o ! i it for the Dreservii .on ftnd tmpri- I't
remainiiu omumental i,axii« i it does follow 'h>v !ie ,\
CoMrt will not, at tl» inatmee of tl • reman •t.-mwn, grunt -in [
injunction to restritin the K- .uni ,r life ran cattint? *t
mental timber wiiic^ it has

cut, Mnd direct that th« cutting n, under s su
Th( l emaindemian hM a right to th' protection 'h.
! ' prpvpnt the tenant fc life frm <•! ,t :
In one case (r) an lu. inc u i- antt
perflon who had eommitt^ w»«t«. -attiBg
from carrying the timlM>i \ : hi <>iBsdo
this is sound law, t)iougli trnpt , ^ t\
an infnnction migh^ be graoted oii ijroi!

to
n.
-t

timbar,
<; j1 Win ' bar
,)tionaI case.

rreparable

m'lsr f. An inju otwn n^rht, Jiow«Te< it .sppears ba
granted to restrain th- car> • 'ng awa^ ©f tii^aar atanding at
the time of process »«■ v od s
The proAaee of miw-^. ti) .pening

liplonp' as- n th«'
estttt*' uf ii <»ritan
t<»»orati«i

the
wii

eq.,:
life

tc-

nan'

^ ■ timber, '
(/) . Compenf
OF iiimi!#ala ii^i<*h

■ 'ife , ,r..

iui life, I aast
' ma; »rmai

ieh is waata, Praixrtj in

MMNil Binamli.

parts, o

mill.

er the flnt
louey j.did by a
-isv \j ha,n been
'3 not bolong imme-
ipportioned between
the number of years
c(; he worked out baing ascer-
m in. y divided into as many
-ts >' id to the tenani for

13 c D.

1.7. ^"^^ Stortgi
179 ; .. . Ch. Ofi
(r) I V«fc -J a. 93.

CL (ABMr.) 1^

V^UdM r. »f. < a P. Wbm.

840 » A- V. irAi<>/./, 3 r Was.
287 ; /iV BarringUm, 33 C. D. 627 ;
66 L. J. Oh. 178.

(n) a* JBhMmm'* Hifffasiiiif.
(lWl)SGh.I»,13S: aOLXCk
776; aai ass A J^Wbrtai. (UM)

94

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

Ckip.IT.
Sect. 9.

AeoooBt

In all cases in which an action for an injunction will lie to
- restrain fatare waste, a Court of equity will, xvpaa tiie jmn-

ciple of preventing a multiplicity of suits, give an account of
past waste (x), but where from the determination of the estate
of the wrongdoer, or some other reason, there is nothing on
which the injunction can oparate, and complete relief can be
had in damages, an action for an account will not, as a general
rule, lie (y). In a case where a tenant for life was executrix
of a preceding tenant for life, both being impeachable for
waste, and both having committed waste, although an injunc-
tion and account were granted against the existing tenant for
life, it was yet held that, as no injunction could be granted
against the preceding tenant for life, an account could not be
ordered against her executrix for waste committed by the
inreceding tenant for life (z) . But if the waste were of such a
nature, that there was no remedy at law, and a wrong would
be sustained, if equity did not interfere, an action for an
account would lie, although an injunction might not be com-
petent. Thus in (htrlh r. Cotton (a), a decree tot an aectnint
of timber was made against the assets of a remainderman in
fee, who had colluded with the tenant for life in cutting timber
before the birth of a contingent remainderman. So, also, in
cases of equitable waste, an action for an account will lie
against the assets of a deceased wrongdoer, though an in-
juncti(m is not competent (b).

Mines and collieries, being a species of trade (c), an aecoont
of profits will in all cases be granted, without reference to the
2 Ch. 138 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 655 ; cf. S46 ; 1 Dick. 183.
Be Barrington, Oamlon Y. Lyon, 33 (4) Marquis of iMtitdmontY. Mar-

C. D. 823 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 175.

(r) Je$u$ CMfye v. Bloom, 3 Atk.
263 ; Amb. 54 ; PoiroM v. Palnur,
3lC.ftK.a39: 41B.B.M9.

(y) Jmu* CoUtgn r. Blnom, 3 Atk.
263 ; Ainb. 54 ; Qriermm r. Egrg,
9 Vp8. 346; ParroU T. Palmer, 3
M. k iC. 632, 640, 642 ; 44 R. R.
149.

(i) j7';/"/<»i6i*JAa»» V. Ila'ilciM, 7
Ch. 676; 41 L. J. Ch. 828.
(a) 3 Atk. 761 ; 1 Vat. Sra. 624,

chumeu of Lanidvwne, 1 Madd. 116 ;
15 B. R. 225 ; Dtike of Lmli v.
Urd Amkent. 2 Ph. 117 ; 16 L. J.
Cb. 361 : 78 B. B. 47: Merri* v.
jr«rrM, 8 De O. ft J. S83 : 98 L. f.
Ch. 329 ; Bbiie Pe'er$, 1 De G. J.
ft S. 345 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 200. See
Phillipt V. Ilrmfray, (1802) 1 Ch.
466, 471 : 61 L. J. Ch. 210.

(c) Jejftif V. Smith, 1 Jao. ft W.
988,809 ; 91B.B.17t.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WASTE.

95

question whether or not an injunction will lie, or whether or Cfctp-iv.
notttorei8 8remedyatlaw(rf). ***•*•

An action for an injunction by the patron of a liring to stay
waste by an incumbent, or by the Attorney-General to stay
waste by a bishop, should not pray for an account of the profits
for their own benefit as patrons (e).

If one co-owner of land derives gain by committing destruc- Aeooa»»
tive waste on the common property, he is liable to account to lU! *
the other owners for theirAhares of the money so obtained (/).
The tenant in common of a mine is accordingly entitled to an
account of the monies produced by working the mine (g).
But in taking the acoomit the tenant in common who works the
mine is allowed to deduct from the value of the minerals in
account with his co-tenants the cost of severance and bringing
the minerals to the pit's mouth (A). A tenant in common in
occupation of an estate is not liable to '^ceoont for waste in
cutting timber which falls short of destructive waste (t).

The account is limited to the monies actually recei\ d and Aeeosnt limited
the profits actually made by the wrongdoer. There can be no i^"Ji^i„d.
account in respect of acts unatt^ded by >roflt. When,
accordingly, equitable waste had been committed by a tenant
for life without impeachment of waste in pulling down a man-
sion-house, and baiidit^ a new house with the materials of
the old one on another part of the estate, but it did not appear
that any profit had been derired from the sale of the materials,
the Court held fliat an aeeoont eoaM not be had against the
assets of the deceased tenant for life (k). The case would have
been otherwise, if he had sold the materials and received the

(<<) Jmu OOkft Umm, « (y) See Btntlry v. Batu, 4 Y. * (\

363 ; Amh. M ; Thomu t. (MUqr, Bx. Eq. 182 ; 9 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. J.q

M V«fc IM; 11 R. B. 181 ; PurrM 30 ; M E. R. 46fi. See also Cltyg

T. fti/m«r, 3M.ftK.642 ; 41E. R. v. Clegg, 3 Gifl. 322; Dtnyt r.

149; Elia, v. OriJM, • D. Sfhurkh,ir<jh, 4 T. ft O. Xt. B. 4g :

521,526,626. 64 R. K. 446.

(«) Knight v. UotOry, Amb. 176. (A) Job y. Putton, 80 Kq. 84, 97;

(/) Co. Litt. 200 b; MarUn r. 44 L. J. Ch. 263.
Knou^y,, 8 T. B. 146. See Twtrt (<) Orijkt v. Oriftm, i L. T.

v. ruort, 13 Vmm; 10 B.B. 141; 7l«:nWB.M8.
and Job T. AMm, M If, M; 44 {») Mtrrk r. MmriB. 3 Da O. *

96

INJUNOnONa AGAINST WASTE.

C^vr- profits (0- So also a tenant for life will not be charged ii4th

sums produced by technical acts of waste which have improved

the land (e.g.), cutting and selling turf (m). Credit also
will be given in taking the account for the application of the
proceeds of waste by the tenant for life in permanent improve-
ments (n).

» c***^"!^^ If a case for account be made out, the Court cannot inquire
oat, the law wiu whether the act complained of was or was not a sound exercise

whrthw or not °^ discretion with reference to the state of the property and to
the net com- the interests of the family to which it belongs (o) .

plained of wu « . . o \ /

■oiind exerciw A mesne remainderman for life, although entitled to an
of discretion. injuQcticm to protect his enjoyment, has no interest to call for

Reinainderman , / >

for life. an account (/>).

Dunagetfor When Ornamental timber has been felled and the rever-
•qaitabi* wMte. gj^ne, claims damages from the tenant for life in respect of

such equitable waste, the amount of damage ran only be
measured by the damage done to the inheritance (9).
sutou of In the case of legal waste, the Statate of Limitations begins

to run against the remainderman from the time the waste is
committed, and (in the absence ot disability or acknowledg-
ment) the action will be barred by the statute 21 Jac. 1, c. 16,
at the end of six years (r). Where, however, the tenant tw
life is also owner of the first estate of inheritance, time will
not run imtil his death (s). In the case of equitable waste,
time does not run against the rrawinderman until his estate
falls into possession, and the action must tiien be brou^t
within twelve years (<).

{I) Morrill T. Morrit, 3 Be O. & Hastingt, 10 R<]. 4ti5 ; I,. J. Ch.

J. 328 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 329. 38.

(m) Harris v. Ekiiu, 20 W. R. (r) Seagram v. Knight, 2 Ch.

999 ; 26L. T. 827. 628; 36 L. J. Ch. 918; Iliggin-

(n) liirch Wol/e v. Birch, 9 Eq. botham v. Uawkint, 7 Ch. 676 ; 41

683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 346. L. J. Ch. 828 ; and Me Bireh Wof/k

(o) </ LmU V. Lord v. SireA, OBq. W3; S9 L. J. Ch.

AtiAtm, 3 ni. 117, 13S ; 18 L. J. 94S ; jKn^tM v. Stmpaon, 3 L. B. Ir.

Ch. 381 ; 78 B. B. 47. 308 ; Datkwood v. Magniac, (1891) 3

(p) Pigot V. BModc, 1 Ve«. Jun. Ch. p. 387 ; 60 L. J. Ch. p. 832, ;«r

479 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 838 ; 2 R. B. 148. Kay. L.J.

Soe Qent v. Harmon, John. 824 ; (») Birch H U/e v. llirch, L. R.

as L. J. Ch. 70. 9 Ell. 683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 348.

(y) Bttbb T, YdeertM, Sx j>rrU [t) Duk$ <^ Lttdi v. Amktra, 3

STATUTOftY ENACTMENTS APEECTINO WASTE. W

If, however, there has been long delay in bringing the cup-ir.
action, the Court will aaually endeaTOiir to deal libwally with ^ **

the estate of a deceased tenant for life, inasmuch as, in '***''■
many cases, it would not be for the benefit of the parties
concerned to go into a \oo% and expensive inquiry on the

subject (u).

Actions for an injunction to stay waste should not be P«rp«*ua
brought to a hearing when no account is sought, or the Jjjjj^*'**"
account is waived, and the defendant does not dispate the
right of the plaintiff to have the injunction continued, or
offers to submit to the injunction with coats (x).

The right of aetioa tot damages for waste is in respeet of KigfatofMtioii
a tort, and is theref(»e not assfgnable (y). ~'

SEOnON 6.— OBBTAIN STATOTOBT BMAOTHBNTB AJVBOTIira TBB
LA.W IB BBO&BD TO WASTB.

The statements made ir l!ie previous pages of this chaj^
in regard to the law of waste, must be read as modified bjr
various recent statutes.

For example, under the SeUUd Baiatet Aet, 1877 (a), the ^t»><x< ^.tatei
Court may authorise leases of any settled estate, or of any
rights or privileges over or affecting any settled estate for
any purpose, whether inirolving waste or not, subject to tt*
c<mditkMis titwein omitioiied (b).

i'h. 117; 15 L. J. Ch. Ml; TO
It. B. 47 ; Daihivood T. Afagniae,
(1891) 3 Ch. p. 386; 60 L. J. Ch.
p. 831; Beal Ftapettj LimitatioB
Aet, 183S. M. a, S, 94; Bwd Fto-
perty Limitation Aet, 1874, a. i.

(m) nai/ot V. Bagot, 32 Bmt. M^.
519; 33 li. J. Ch. 116. But
Duke of LeetU y. Lord Amhn.
20 IJoav. 239 ; 15 L. J. Uh. 361 ;
78 R. B. 47. S«e also Bayot v.
liayol, 32 Beav. 5>)9, 632 ; 33
L. J. Ch. 116, M to Moott&tt and

inquiries in a case of waste, botk
in timber and minee, preMntiiif
a great complication of cinnui-
■tanoea Sea atao Teekir v.
.iiMMiV, 0 Sim. att; H B. B.
^, lor tlM font tt kifnby as to
.ber.

r) Harvey y. Ftrguttm,l$Jx,Clk.
, 7 ; Dunmny v. Dunn*, t78.
(*) Dffrif V. Milne, (IM^ I Ok,
08 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 1.
(a) 40 & 41 Viet a tt,
(6) 8eet.4.

7

98

STATUTORY ENACTMENTS AFFECTING WASTE

Oh«p. nr. Under tliis nci, the Court may also authorise timber (other
than oniaiuent&l timber) growing on a settled estate to be

sold (c), ai>.l may authorise part of the settled estate to be
laid out for streets, roads, and other works {d).
Settled Und Under the Settled Land Act, 1882, a tenant for h'fe may,
tjjj,^**** without any leave of the rou.t (inter alia), grant huilding
or mining leases (e), and in the latter case, whether the mines
be already opened or not (/). But unless a contrary inten-
tion is expressed in the settlement, part of the rent, in the
case of a mining lease, is to he set aside as capital ; namely,
where the tenant for life is impeachable for waste three-
fourths, otherwise one-fourth (tf).

In connection with a sale or grant for building purposes, or
a building lease, the tenant for 'ue, for the benefit of the
residents on the settled land, may cause any part of the land
to be laid out for streets, roads, squares, gardens, or other
open spaces (h). The Act also authorises capital money to
be ozpended in various improvements on the settled land (i),
and the tenant for life and persons emfdoyed by him may
enter on the settled land, and without impeachment of waste
execute any improvement authorised by the Act, or inspect
and repair the same, and for the purposes fiiereof may (inter
alia) get and work limestone and other substances, and may
cut and use timber not left standing for shelter or orna*
ment (k).

Section 35 provides that where a tenant for life is impeach-
able for waste in respect of timber, and there is on the settled
land timber ripe and fit for cutting, the tenant for life, on
obtaining the consent of the trustees of the settlement or an
order of the Court, may cut and sell sudi timber. Hiree-

(e) 8«ei 18. m to th* powar of tenant lor

(iO SMt 30. to grtnt a lease of a ij^ to lot

(•} 4S ft 46 Tict. 0. 38, •. 6, and down the surface of tb« land 1^

Settled Land Act, 1890 (63 4 64 mfiiing operations.
Vict. c. 69), 8. 8. aetlnrtAldam'a (y) Sect. 11.
Srttlfd Kttatt, (1902) 2 Ch. 46 ; "1 (A) Sect 16.
L. J. Ch. 662. (i) Sects. 26, 26, and 21 (iii.V,

(/) Sect. 2, sub-sect. 10 (iv.). and see sect. 13 of S. li. Aot, 1890.
See SitirtU v. Earl Lontlribnrmigh, (t) Soot. SB.
(1906) 1 Ch. 4fiO ; 74 L. J. Ch. 264,

STATUTORY ENACTMENTS AFFECTING WASTE.

99

fourths of the net proceeds of sale shall be sot aside as capital, ohap. iv.
and the rmnaining fourth shall go as rents and profits. Stet.6.

By section 28 (2) it is provided that a tenant for Iif«,
and his successors in title, who have under the settlement
merely a limited estate or interest in the settled land, shall not
cut down any trees tinted as an improvement under the Act
except in proper thinning.

The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, provides (l) that a AgricuitB«i
tenant of a holding (m) shall be entitled notwithstanding any ^
custom of the country, or the provisions of any contrt. t of
tenancy or agreement respecting the method of cropping of
arable luids or the disposal of crops, to practise any system
of cropping of arable land on ti>e holding, and to dispoae of
the produce of the holding, provided suitable and adequate
provision be made to protect the holding from injury or
deterioration in mmner flierein mmtioned. The enactment
however does not apply in the case of a tenancy from year to
year, as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding,
or any period after he has given or received notice to quit
which results in his quitting the holding, or in any othw caae,
as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of
tenancy. It is also provided that if the tenant exercises his
rights under the section in sueh a manner as to injure or
deteriorate the holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate
the holding, the landlord shall, without prejudice to any other
remedy vhidi may be open to faim, be entitled to recorer
damages in respect of such injury or deterioration at any time,
and, should the case so require, to obtain an injunction
restraining the exercise of the rights under the section in
that mannw. It ia ftleo provided (n) tint wiiere any mgine.

(/) 8 Edw. 7, c. 28. 8. 26.

(m} Sect 48. Holding 18 defined
as " any parcel of land held by •
tenant, which is either wholly
agricultural or wholly paitonl, w
in part agiicultuHd Had as to ^
rendu* paatonl, at in whole or in
putoolttvatedas aaMriMgudan
Mtd it not M to tt* tMutat

during his continuance in any
office, appointment, or empIoyiBWt
held undor the landltnd."

(n) Seek. SI. Iba wHion apvliM
to • fiztoN or boiUing acquired
i^ue the 31st December, 1000, by
• tenant in like manner as it appliea
to a fixture or building affixed or
mttM fey a tMBBt, but doM M*
7— »

100 6TATUT0BT ENAOmiNTB AFFECTINQ WASTE.

Oi^. IV. mschinery, fencing or other fixture is sfBxed to s holding by

8MI.6.

- a tenant, and any building is erected by him thereOD lot 1
he is not under the Act or otherwise entitled to compensation,
and which is not so affixed or erected in pursituice of some
obligitiop in behalf, or mitaMl of toBM ixtnm or buiMlBg
betOBging to tlie landlord, such fixture or buildinp ahall be the
property of and be removable by the tenant bef(Mre or witim
a reasonable time after the determinatkm of flto taaaaoy on
the conditions therein mentioned.

It is also provided (o) that except as in the Act expressed,
nothing in the Act shall prejudicially affect any power, right,
or ronadr, of a bmdlonl, tmuit, or otter penon, veatad in
or exerciseable by him by Tiitne of any other Act or law, or
under any custom of the country, or otherwise, in respect of
a eantiaet of tenaocy, or oA«r contract, or of any waste,
tillages, away-going crops, fixtures or other thing.
Small Hoidiofi The Small Holdingt and AUotmetUa Act, 1908 (p) enables
An, ^808?*°** a tenant of any small holding or allotment (q) before the
expiration of his tenancy to remove any fruit and other trees
and bushes planted or acquired by him, and also certain build-
ings for which he has no claim for compensation.

apply to any fixture or building fixtures and enables auch tenanta

affixed or erected before the also to remove fruit tfMe on

1st January, 1884 (sub-sect 2). tain conditions.

See also sect. 42, subHMcta. (o) Sect. 46.
(ii.), (iiL), which extend the pro- {p) 8 Edw. 7, c. 36t*. 47 (4).
Timna of Met 21 to tba t«MBta (9) Seet 61 (1).
t gsHMa, M to MBMnral of

CHAPTER V.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TR1S8PA88.

Thk jurisdiction of a Court of equity to grant injunctions ch»p. v.
against trespass is comparatively of modem establiBhment(a). jariMiietMm!
The Court for a long time confined relief in equity to mwte,
founding its interference on the privity of title between the
parties (b). The rigour of the old rule in confining relief in
equity to warte^ wu rofciKsd for the first time by Lord Thnrlow
in a case where, Ihe party complaining being in possession of a
close, a wrongdoer was working into his minerals, and taking
away the very snbstanee of his estate (c) . In relaxing the rule
Lord Thurlow acted with reluctance, and was influenced solely
by the irreparable and destructive injury which would have
followed the refusal (d). The principle established by Lord
Thurlow in Flamang'i eate wu apfHrored by Lord Eldon, and
followed by him in some cases, but the law on the subject was
left by him in an unsatisfactory state. Succeeding judges
have, on more than me oecaaion, pointed this oat, and have
felt much difficulty in finding the principle ttpon wbiA to aot
in each case as it arose.

The state of the law, and the various authorities, were
reviewed with much care by Kii^raley, V.-C, in Lowndet v.
Bettle (e), who classified the cases under two heads: the one,
where the party against whom the application for the injunc-
tion is made is in posaenioa; wcA tiie othw, lAmt the
plaintiff is ia possesaion and is aaldng the Court to ^oteel
his estate.

(a) 3 Ra. Ca. 335. (</) 7 Ves. 308 ; 18 Ves. 186 ;

(A) Davenport v. Davtnport, 7 Ha. Talbot v. Hope ScoH, 4 K. & J.
217; 18 L. J. Cli. 163; 82 B. E. p. 122; 27 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 116ILB.
"fi; LomiikiY. SetHk.Zi'L.S.Qh. 271.

^^>- («) S3 L. J. Ol Ml. 8w FiU.

(e) Ftamang-t ea«^ di 6 Teb 147 ; hmM^t (torrf) v. funM, (1908) t
7Vw.SMi8T«s.WiMTM.188. Oh. p. lit ; 77 L Ok p. MM.

108

INJUNOnONS AGAINST TBE8PABB.

Okap.

In what cam
an iojunetioa

JaiUcatan Aot,

Nb4. 8.

The result of the cases (apart from the alteration made by
the Jodkatare Aet, 1878) wm flwi iriwre the idaintifl wu

out of poisession the Court would refuse to interfere by grant-
ing an injunction unless there was fraud or collusion, or unless
the acts perpetrated or threatened were eo injurious as to tend
to tiie destruction of the estate (/). Where the plaintiff mui
in fotiestion and the defendant was a mere tresfotser not
claiming under colour of right, the tendency of the Court was
not to grant an injunction, in the absence of special circum-
stances, but to leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law;
although an injunction would be granted if the acts com-
plained of tended to the destmctim of ttie estate. But where
the plaintiff was in posaeeskm and the defendant chimed under
an adverse title, the tendeney was to grant the injunction (g).

The diatinetitm, however, which has been takm between the
eases where the defendant committing the acts of trespass or
spoliation complained of is or is not in possession, and claims
under colour of title, or is a mere stranger, is not now of the
same importance ; for by sect. 26, aab-net. 8 of file Judica-
ture Act, 1873, it is provided that : —

"... if an injunction is asked, eiuier before or at, or
after the hearing of any cause or matter, to prevent any
threatened or apprehended waste or trespass, such injunction
may be granted, if the Court shall think fit, whether the
persm against whom such injunction is sought is, or is not,
in possession under any claim of title or otherwise, or (if out
of possession) does or does not claim the right to do the act
sought to be restrained under any colour of title ; and whether
the estates claimed by boUi ot either of Am parties ere legal or
equitable."

In Lowndes v. Betlle (h), the plaintifi and his ancestors had

if) Sm Talbet v. J7iqM 8eoU, 4
K. 4k J. 106 ; 27 L. J.Ot. 273 ; lt6
B. B. 271 ; A'ea/e v. Cripps, 4 K. T
472 ; 116 B. R. 413 ; and the other
cases cited by Kinderaley, V.-O., in
Lowndti V. BettU, 33 L. J. Ch. 461.
See (lao BbH^fifd v. Emtdtm, 9
Ch. 110.

(g) See Lowndet v. BOOe, 33 L. 3.
Ch. 451, 467; and Fiixhardiitgt
[Lord) V. Purtell, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 145 ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. 534.

(A) :« L. J, Ch, 451. See also
Stanford v. HurUtone, 9 Ch. 119;
Alien T. Martin, 20 Eq. 462 ; Ardiey
T. Quardttau of St, /Vmenit, 30

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

108

been in poeseMion of an estate for eighty years, and the
defendant, claiming as heir-at-law, mtered upon it, and

exercised acts of ownership by cutting sods and felling timber,
with the view, as he alleged, of prosecuting his claim as
heir onder the direetion of the Court, Kindersley, V.-C, con-
sidering that irremediable damage might result in the event of
his refusing to interfere, granted an interim injunction, and
afterwards made tiie injunction perpetual. If the trespass did Nalnd <
not amount to destructive trespass, but was a case of mere
ordinary naked trespass, the Court of Chancery would not,
under the old procedure, interfere by way of injunction (i).
Thus irtiere a claimant to pn^rty had been ntmsuited in
ejectment, the Court refused to restrain him from vexatiously
distraming on or otherwise moio: ting the tenants (;) . So, also,
where the owner t)i house property filed a bill fw an injune-
tion against a defendant who had been his lessee, but had
forfeited his lease, to restrain him from distraining oa the
tenants, a demurrer for want of equity was allowed (k).

But under the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 8, an
injunction may be had to restrain a landlord from exercising
his legal right of distress. lu Shaw v. Lord Jeraej/ (l) an
injunction was granted to restrain a landl<»rd from distoaining
for rent until the determination of an action brought by the
tenants against him to try his right to the rent on the terms
that the injnnctim should be granted for a fnrteigfat, and
continued only on the payment of the rent in the meantime
into Court. So, also, the Court may now restrain a toespass by Injanetioa
injunotim in cases where there has been no destructive tres- ^^TdtirtrwMiT*
peas. A lessor accordingly, who, in the absence of a power *
to enter upon the demised premises to repair them on breach of
the lessee's covenant to laffAr, entered for the purpose of exe-
cuting tepairs, was restrained by injnneticm, even though

T.. jr. Ch. 871 ; LmU Navigation Co. Bat we Bedgm» t. Am, 2 Jnr.

V. ifor$/aU, 3i Sol. Jo. 183. N. S. 1014.

(t) Oarttin y. Aiplin, 1 Madd. (i) Aldit T. Fnuer, 15 Beav.

152 : ■fa'-ktw Y. Stanhopf. 15 L. J. 220 : 92 E. B. 387.

Ch. 446; Cooper v. Crabtree, 20 (/) 4 C. P. D. 359, afflniiiiig48

C. D. 589 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 644. L. J. C. P. 308. See Onttr

(/} Beit r. Droit, 11 Ha. 369. Satmon, 4:{ L. T. 490.

104

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBBSPA88.

<»■>■ under a superior lease the lessor was liable to forfeitur* for
non- repair, and though he entered by leare of a ireekiy

tenant (m). So, hIho, h lessor was restrained by injunction
from entering upon the demised premises for the purpose of
rmnoring a political poster which the tenant had afRxed to die
house, the |)Ower of entry only being for non-payment of rent
or breach of the lessee's covenants (n). Where the lessor
eorenants to repair the demised premises, the covenant carries
with it an implied licence to enter upon the premises of the
lessee and occupy them for a reasonable time in order to do
what is necessary under the covenant (o).
When tKxpus The jurisdiction of the Court by injunction in cases of tres-

the breach clear, and serious damage is likely to arise to the
plaintiff if tiie defendant is allowed to .proceed with what he is

doing or threatens to do, an injunction will bo granted pend-
ing the trial of the right (p). But if the right at law is not
dear or the breach is doubtful, and no irreparable injury can'
arise to the plaintiff pending the trial of the right, the case
resolves itself into a question of comparative convenience (q) .
Iojo0etion ia Although actual damage need not be proved to 8uj)port an
aetitm f«» trespass (r), and rights of property as a general
proposition are entitled to protection by, if necessary, an in-
junction, the Court will not grant relief by an injunction
•hare the trespass is trifling, and canses no appreciable injury
to the plaintiff (»), for an injunction in trespass is not a
matter of course (t). Thus in a recent case (u), where the

(m) Stixker v. PUmet Building 416 (trespasu by commoner).

Sociefi/, 27 W. B. 877. See Barker {») Saunden v. Smith, 8 M . * 0.

V. Barlcer, 3 C. 4 P. M7. 711 ; 7 L. J. Ch. W ; Cbop$r w.

(n) rrffcJy T. Morhf. (1»10) »7 Omblne. 90 C. D. 589 ; SI L. J. CJi.

T. L. B. 20. IW; Llandudw District Council v.

(o) SniMr V. Batm. 1 C. D. 834. Wood, (1899) 2 Ch. 705 ; 68 L. J.

(p) See Cfoww T. Beck, 13 Beav. Ch. 623 ; Ikhre,,* v. Richard,,

847 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 505 ; Lownde$ y. (1904) 2 Ch. 614; 74 L. J. Ch

Beltle, 33 L. J. Ch. 441 ; Allm 615.

MaHil), 20 Eq. 466. («) H'aterhouie y. Waterhouie,

(?) r ? '•Jfi 2H, .;i9ft6) M L. T. 131 ; » T. L. 1.

(r) Rtiyere v . S/x/ir-. 13 M. 4 W. 195.

581 ; 15 L. J. i:x. 4!i ; see ffi.-jr v. {«) SMrMt T, BidUink, «Mini.
Brown, Durrant i Co., (1913) i Ch.

Mttter cf oMm.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS. 106

plaintiff had purchased land on an unfrequented put of th« Ote»?.
coast, and lud fenced in some fbotpatts over the land wliidi

the Jefendunta claimed to use as being public highways, tht
Court refused to grant an injunction restraining the defen-
darta from removing the plaintiff's fences, on the ground that
thu plaintiff was not injorad bjr tb« then ri^t poUie nscr ot
(ho paths, and by way of relief made a dpclarntion in the
plaintiff's favour that the paths were not highways, and
awarded him nominal damages fOr tiie traapam.

Id thft caRo of trespass of a continuing nature, however, CoDtinniiif
the Coart will generally interfere by injunction (v), and the
Court will interfere by injunction wliere the tr:8paHH, although
not of a continaii^ mtore, it awioi^ or tiuwtMMd to to
repeated (x).

If the act complained of consists in the erection of works EncUooot
or buildings on the land of the plaintiff, an injaiMtioii may be ^"""■•^
hiid as long as the works are in an incomplete state ; but if the
works or buildings have been completed before action, the
Court will gmerally kftro tile pWalil to his reoiet^ in
damages (y). If, bowerer, the eondaet ol tka defenduit has

{v) Ooodtm V. Biekardiom, 9

221, 237 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 790, 791 ;
Allen T. Martin, 20 £q. 465 ; Ardley
V. (htanliant i<f St. Pancrat, 39
L. J. Ch. 871 ; Eardley v. Lord
UrnnHUt, 3 C. \). 826 ; 43 L. J. Ch.
6<>9 ; Batlertra Vettry v. County o/
f.onilun and Bruth, etc., On., (IMS)
1 Ch. 474 : 68 li. J. cat. MO;
LoHdmtmilfiira WmkntMaUwaf
Co. T. We$lmimUr Ouffuntiom,
(1902) 1 Ch. 269 ; 71 L. J. Oh. 94;
(1905) A. C. 426 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 629 ;
Marriott v. Katt Grin$leuH Oa$ and
Walrr Co., (19»>9) 1 Ch. 79; 78
L. J. Ch. 144 ; Schweder v. Worth-
ing Oat Light and Coke Co., (1912)
1 Ch. 83, 90 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 102;
Kwg T. AwMi, Dmrm* *

(s) Sm ArHwM V. Mbq^iW-
iM4, (1809)1 Q.B.^1M:6>I..J.

a B. p. 126; BaHtrtm Vmtry t.

Coimtjf </ LomdoH awl Brmh Co.,
(1899) 1 Ch. 483, 484 ; 68 L. J. Ch.
240; Hickman v. Maisti/ (1900)
1 Q. B. 762 ; 69 L. J. a B. 511 ;
Stajfonlthire and Worcettenhirt
Canal Narigntton v. Bradley, (1912)
1 Ch. 95 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 147 ; Lmti*
T. MtndUk, (1913) 1 Ch. 671 ; 109
L.T.94e; JTofw V. (Meme, (191^
9 349 ; King v. Brown, Durrtml
it Co., note (r), ntfra. As to when
an intended repetition of an act
will be inferred, see PhiMpt v.
Thomat, 62 L. T. 7«3 ; Dunlop
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. ytal, (1899)
1 Ch. 807 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 378.

(y) Detre t. Oiml, 1 M. ft 0.
51G; 6 L. J. Ou 69; Mentmmij.
Hehardeom, 92 Bmv. p. 904; ML. J.
Cb. p. 997; in B. B. 901. 8w
IMmmhr t. WtrOiitt OmtLifhtami

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

Cbap. V.

Patent tml
cbild.

Mnajcipal
OoryontiM

TrtMMM whea

kan fraudulent, vex ttious or oppressive, and the trespass is
of to Mrioas » nature tint tiie pftrties eumoft b* jrf»e«d in the

|H)8iti()n in which thoy were before the acts werr ronimitted,
without the iaterfern ce of the Court, the Court will interfere,
even though the Mt ocMnplained of hai been coinj)leted {:),
The Court will in u very grave case grant an injunction at the
uHtanco of a parent to restrain a son from entering hiM
parent's house (a).

In a recent ease (b) m injunction was granted reetraining
a local newspaper proprietor, who was also a burgi'sa and
ratepayer, from attending meetings of the borough council,
on the ground that such meetings were not public, and tiiat
a person who was not a member of the council had no right to
attend such meetings, either as a member of the public gene-
rally, or as a burgees and ratepayer, or as a representative of
the Press. But it is now provided (c) that representatives of
the Press are to be entitled to be present iit the meetings of a
local authority, subject to the right of the local authority to
temporarily exclude them when sudi exclusion is advisable
in the pul !'c interest.

A trespass may be justifiable, if in the circumstances it watt
reasonably necessary for the presenratkm Ot ^he defmdant's
property from a real and imminent danger, even though it
subsequently appears that the defendant's act was not in fact
actually necessary {d).

The Court will, in a ytoptt case, interfere by mandatcNry

G** Cb., Mvra; Lewk v. MmtiUh,

{x) 8m onlr, Tpp, 44—40.

(a) 8ttven$ t. Steven*, (1907) 24
T. L. R. 20 (injunction granted) ;
]Vaterho>iie v. ]i'at(rhoiut, (1906) 94
L. T. 134 (injunction refused).

(6) Tenhy Corporation t. Maton,
(1908) 1 Ch. 4S7 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 230.

(<•} 8 Edw. 7, c. 43, «8. 1 and 6 ;
and see aeoi 6 u to the admiaaion
ot tbe pabSe. As to patidi me«t-
ingi, Me M ft S7 Yict. o. 7S, •. 9,
Sdwdnle T., pt. 2 (13).

(<i) Gope V. aharpt [tTo. 2),

(1913) 1 K. B. 490 ; 81 L. J. K. B.
346. 8m « Bdw. 7, o. 11, a. 3,
whidi givw a nOwsy company
power to enter on a person'* land
and do all things " reasonably
necetisary " for the purpose of
extinguishing or arresting the
spread of fires caused by spatka
from their engines. 8ee also
Oreyvttuteyn r. Iluttingh, (1911)
A. C. 8»5 i 80 L. J. P. C. 1A8, M to
zi^lit b&dowu^f to protect
lud by driving off a twm «f

LN JUNCTIONS AGAINST TBBSPA88.

107

injunction against tredpnss (e). If the treapags or damage
is complete and the title is a pure legal title, the Court would fXT^^^ |,
not fat gaiMnil interfen bymjot mutdatory injanotkm. thei>— irftwuMi.
being a full remedy at law by ejeetment (/). But if the
damage ia serious, or the trespass is of a continuing nature, tha
Court may interfere by way of mandatory injunction, notwith-
standing the existence of a remedy at law (g).

In a case where the plaintiffs had made ou. ueir right at
law to build a bridge over the defendants' railway, and as a
temporary easement to emel pidea and othor tanporary ob<
HtructionH upon land adjacent to the defendants' railway, and
the defendants had, in order to prevent the plaintiffs from so
temporarily using timr Uati, bnlH np a wall whksh effeetoally
prevented the plaintiffs from carrying on their works, a
mandatory injunction was gisnied restraining the defendants
from emtinning to ase the wall and from preventing the
plaintiffs from making th«^ bridge (h). So, also, where watw
pipes (i), and electric light standards (;), and gas mains (k),
hud, without the consent of the owner of the » '\, been laid

(0 See ante, pp. 42— 4A, a. to
mau'UtrTy injunctioiM.

[/] ere v. Outri, 1 M. & C.
oKi, J L. J. Ch. 69; iV rtland v.
Itp hnrdtoi, '.?2 Beav. 604 ; 25 L. J.
Ih. 883 : 111 B. B. 601 ; we AU.-
<)tn. y. Manehetttr and Lttdt BnU'
tony Co., 1 £r. Ck. 436, and OmAm
V. ilie«ar«iM», L. 9St; 43

L. J. Ch. 790.

(9) Martyr v. Lawrtnee, i De
O. J. ft 8. 261 ; L-mdon and North
W**leni RaUuray Co. y. Lancashire
and Yorkshire Pnilivay Co. 4 Eq.
174; 36 L. J. Vh. 479; and see
Oo^lnm V. SiehardtoH, 9 Ch. 221 ;
London and North Wmiem Bailway
Co. V. H'efhnimfcr Corporvtim,
(1902) 1 Ch. 309; 71 L. i. (%. M;
8. C. (1906) A. 0. 428; 7* L. 3. Cfc.
M»; MmnioU t. EoH Qrnutfad 0,n
•mi WMtr Co., (1909) 1 Ch. p. 79;
TIL.;. Oh. 144; Amimmw.Ahm-

tillery Urban Council, ,
Ch. 398. 409 ; 80 L. J. Cli. " •
747, in/ro; Kynoek <k ) 'o. > V..
lands, (1912) 1 Ch. fi27; 106 "
316 (tipping rubbish) ; Sckwrdt-
IforMuv a- light oMi 0»k$ Co.,
(IMS) 1 (A. W. 90; 81 L. J. Ch.
103.

(A) aria North of England, He.
Jnniiim BaHv>ay Co. v. Clartwe
naOway Cb., i CoU. fi07. Sm
I'hUlipt V. Trt^, • Anr. M. a

999.

(•) Qoodton V. Richardson, Mar-
<-U)U T. East GriHttaad Om tmd
li'ater Co., supra.

OmmeiitMfHL
ik)achm»itr T. WMfOksf Om

LiyU and •'obe Co., t^ftm. Jm tUi
caM the gas main WM fiaoed i^OB
the plaintiiTB tunnel naiv aieai.

108

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

in the soil of a highway, an injunction was granted to restrain
the continoance of the trespass. So, also, a railway company
was restrained from permitting trucks or carriages to stand
across level crossings so as to obstruct or impede the user of
thc«n by the [dsintiff (t). So, also, parties wen restrained
from continuing to put a tramway upon a road (m). So, also,
a man was restrained from leaving logs of timber on premises
of which he had agreed to give up possession at the end of
his lease, and from which he was evicted by a writ of posses-
sion (n). So, also, where the lessees of a coal mine had
made apertures to ventilate the mine through the land of the
plaintiff, and had mortgaged tiieir interest in tiie mine to the
defendants, who began to work the mine and continued to
use the apertures, the Court granted an injunction which was
in some respects of a mandatory nature, restraining them tnm
continuing to use the apertures, but declined to ^rant a
mandatory injunction ordering them to fill up the apertures
inasmuch as they had not made them (o). So, also, a coal-
owner who had worked into the mines of his neighbour was
restrained from permitting the ways, passages, and apertures
made by him to remain open (p). So, also, the lessee of a
coal mine was restrained from conducting or allowing to pass
any water into a neighbouring mine by means of troughs,
bore-holes, or air-drifts (q). bo, also, the trustees of a road
were restrained from making an encroachment upon tiie plain-
tiff's land by making buttresses, etc. (r). So, also, a man
was restrained by mandatory injunction from permitting a
building which he had erected on the roof of a neighbour's
house to remain tiiere (•). So, also, a mm was rattrained

(/) I'nitril Land Co. v. (Irent
Eatkm SaUimy Co., L. B. 10 Ch.
p. Sn ; 44 L. J. Ch. 686.

(m) Neatk OamU Oo. t. Tnimrwtd,
tie., CoUierg Co., L. R. 10 Ch. 450.
See also Att.-Oen, v. li'itlna Bail-
way Co., 22 W. fi. 607 ; 30 L. T.
449.

(n) Ouimiet$ v. Fitzaimona, 13
L. B. Ir. 73.
(o) PoivtU V. ^t^M, 4 K ft J.

366; 116 R. B. 368.

(p) BtU J. JoM, 1 MS.

(«) WtitmiMttr Bffmia Coal, «fc..
Co. T. (UjfUm, 38 L. J. Ch. 476.
See Waul T. Sktt. 21 L. T.
106.

(r) Holmet v. CptuH, 9 Ch.
214, n.

(«) Martifr t. Lawrmet, 2 De
Q.J.ttB. Ml.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

109

from making such alterations in a building as to oorer up a Ch*p. v.
fascia which «m parcel of the hoaae of his neighbour (<).
So, also, a man was restrained at the suit of his wife from
continuing in possession of a house which formed part of her
■epMrate ectate (»). So, also, the managw of a business wm
restrained from excluding the owner <rf the business from the
businef s premises (*). In a case where a wall had been
knoc'ied down, the Court would not interfere by way of manda-
tory injunction so as to order it to be built again, bat left
the plaintiff to his remedy by damages at law (y).

An action of trespass is founded on possession (2), and Action of
in order to soeeeed, the fdaiutiff mast show possession of the founded
lands on which the acts complained of were committed, at the
date of such acts. If possession be shown, the defendant is not
at liberty to set up tiie tifle «rf a third party unless he justifies
what he has done undo* a licence from such third party.
When, however, a {daintiff in trespass not being able to prove
actual possession proposes to show possession at law by
proving his title to the property, the defraduit may, if he can,
show that the title is not in the plaintiff, but in some third
party (a). In an action of trespass the right to sue as against
a wnmgdoer relates faaek, after entry mto possession, to the
time at which the right to enter accrued, so as to give a
right of action for a trespasa committed between the date of
the right to enter and that of the actual entry (b).

An action for trespass is usually brought by the ooeofist ynrntttgrnt-
or tenant of the land, whether tenant for jrears or from year to

{*) rrancU r. Hagtetri, S C. L.
tTV; SSL. J. Ch. Ml.

(«) 0i«Mv. Onm,tIbL 400, n. ;
1 B. B. Ml.

(a;) Eaehui j. Mom, 14 W. B.
327

(y) Doran v. Carroll, 11 Ir. Ch.
379.

(z) Fitzhardingt{Lord)f.Pwrt»ll,
(1908) 2 Ch. p. 144 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 094.
And Mt WaUu r. Htmd», (MM) %
Ol 7«; M L. J. Ch. m i (Urn.
wood LmtOtr Ok. v. PkiUf, (1904)

A. 0. p. 410; 7S L. J. P. 0.

•4; Foiter y. Warblinglon Crban
Ootmcil, (1906) 1 K. B. 671; 78
L. J. K. B. 614 ; Kynock <fc Co. v.
Bmclandt, (1912) 1 Ch. 627; 106
L. T. 316.

(a) FUzharditu/e [Lord) v. PuraU,
$uyra.

(i) Ocmm Aeeidtnt and Ouanmtm
Oarptniiam v. /(Ami Om Ck.,
(iaM)8K. B. 493 ; 741.. J. K. B.
7W (a«tioB by equtebb Bort.

110

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

^'"P-^- year, Tvhose possession is interfered with, bat the owner may

sue on the ground of injury to his property, either alone or
conjointly with the tenant. In order that a re ersioner may
maintain an action for trespass, it is necessary that he allege
•ad {wore tii»t the wrong oomiriMned of is an injury to the
reversion, either uy being of a permanent nature or as operat-
ing as a denial of right (e). A mortgagee, after entry into
possession, esn sue in respeet of a trespass to the mortgaged
jMremisss committed prior to entry, but after his right of entry
arose (d). If the act complained of affects the public interest,
the remedy is by action in the nature of an information at
the suit of the Att<»ney-Oeneral (e). The Attomey-Oenersl,
however, is not a necessary party and should not be joined in
proceedings to protect rights of property enjoyed not by the
eommnnity in general, but only by a limited section of the
public, Ruch as the inhabitants of a parish (/). A local autho-
rity may act as relators In an action brought by the Attomey-

(r) Jaekton v. Petked, 1 M. & S.
234; 14 B. R. 417; Himpiwi v.
Savage, 1 C. B. N. 8. 347 ; 26 L. J.
C. P. 60 ; 107 R. R. 688 ; Bell v.
Mitlland Sail nay Co., 10 C. B. N. S.
287 ; 30 L. J. 0. P. 273; KidgiUY.
Moor. » C. B. 364 ; 1» L. J. 0. P.
177 ; 82 B. B. 3M; Mn^wm r.
FoUy, 2 J. ft H. US; iMhMd v.
BMiMon, 4 Ch. 388, 39d ; 20 L. T.
3M ; May fair Property Co. v. John-
»ton, (1894) 1 Ch. 508, 516 ; 63 L. J.
Ch. 399, 402 ; Shelfer v. City of
London Electric Light Co., (1895)
1 Ch. 314, 317 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 224,
226 ; Colwdl v. St. Panenu Boretigk
Cnmctf, (19M) 1 Ch. p. 713 ; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 279 ; Jam r. Uanrwtt
Urban Counea. (1911) 1 Cfc. SM,
404 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 150.

('/) Ocean Accident awl (Imrantef
Cor; oratton v. liford Qae Co., (1905)
2k.B.4M; 74KJ. K.&
799.

(e) See Thome v. Taw Vale Bail-
toay Co., 13 Bmv. 10 ; BmrmmuUe^

Ventrt/ V. Brown, 1 E<i. 204, 215;
WaUanfij Local Board v. Oraeey, 36
t. D. 693, 597 ; 66 L. J. Oi. 739;
Tottenham District CounfU r.
n Ulianuum, (1896) 2 a B. 363 ; M
L. J. a B. 69i ; SMit fMtk
Citmeil y. Prire. (1899) 3 Ch. 377 ;
68 L. J. Ch. 147 ; Ihvonport y. Towr,
(1903) 1 CI... 759, 762; 72 L. J.
Ch. 411 ; Boyce v. Paddiugton
Borough Council, (1903) 2 Ch. 6W ;
72 L. J. Ch. 32 (reversed on other
grounds, (1906) A. L. 1 ; 75 L. J.
Ch. 4) ; Watton v. Hythe Corpora-
tioH, (1906) 22 T. L. B. 246 ; Att.-
dm. T. Owrmr, (1907) 3 K. & 43S.
488; 76 L. J. K. B. 96«, 968 Mtt.-
OtK, T. Ch*md Jumttim Canal,
(1909) 2 Ch. 606, 617; 78 L. J.
Ch. 81 ; All. -den. v. Birmingham,
Tame, etc., Druinage Board, (1910)
1 Ch. 48; 79 L. J. Ch. 139;
Att.-(len. V. Lewtt Corporation,
(1911) 2 ClL 496; 27 T. L. B.
681.

(/) AtL-Om, T. Qwrmr, (18M)

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

General (g). Private persona or local authorities may sue
alone erea Aoagh ttie aet oomplained of may affeet the public
interest where their proprietary rights arc intorfmd with,
and they can make out a case of special damage, or can show
that greater damage is caused to them liiereby than is caused
to the King's subjects in general (fc). So, abo, where a ear-
poration exceeds its statutory powers and commits a trespass,
the owner of property injured can sue and raise the question
of uUra vire$ wiflwat jdniog the Attomey-GenwBl (i).
Where an Act of Parliament contains a provisioD for the
special protection of an individual, he may enforce his rights
thereunder by an action vithout either joining the Attorney-
General as a party, or showing that he has sustained any par-
ticular damage (;). Where an illegal act is being committed,
whidi in its nature tends to the injury of the public (such as
un interference with a pablie highway w a nav^Ue river),
the Attomey-Geoeral, tm bdialf of the pablie, ean aunlain

2 K. B. 480, 487 ; 78 L. J. E. B.
965, 968.

(y) Att.-am. V. Icgan, (1891) 2
a B. 100; « L. T. 162. See
Stoke Purith Ckmneil t. Prire, (1899)
2 Ch. 277; 68 L. J. Ch. 447;
Ikionpart Corporation v. Tozer,
(1903) 1 Ch. 789, 762; 72 L. J. Ch.
416; Att.-<itn.y. Oamtr, (1907) 2

K. B. p. 4tf ; 76 L. J. K. B.

SWH.

(A) Cook V. Mag«r, Kc, of Bath, 6
Bq. 177; ITiMnMfom v. Lord
Ikrbg, 38 L. jr. Bji. 194 ; Cunliff
Cvrporatioii y. Cardiff WaUrtrorka,
4 De a. ft J. S96 ; 124 R B. 400 ;
Witllatey Local Board v. Gracey, 36
C. D. 593 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 739 ;
LouiliiH Association of Shipowners v.
London ami India Dock* Com-
mittre, (IN92) 3 CL p. 270;

62 L. J. Ch. p. aiij tmm-

ham. VHmm Cbimea v. WUUmimn,
(1898) 3 Q. B. 3M ; 8S L. J. Q. B.
592 ; Bogei t. Paidingtm Borough
Cotmea, (INS) 1 C& UO; 7S L. J.

Ch. 28 ; Shtrrittgham United Diitrict

Council /Tobey, (1904) 20 T. L. B.
402; Wedneslmry Corporation v.
Lodge Hola Colliery Co., (1907) 1
K. B. p. 90 ; 76 L. J. K. B. p. 73
(reversed oii other grounds, (1908)
A. C. 326; 77 L. J. K. B. 847);
Alt.-Gen. v. Qnmer, (1907) 2KB.
487 ; 7S L. J. £. B. 966; MarriM
V. Ah( OriMkmi Oa$ Co.. (1009) 1
C9l p. 78; 78 L. J. Ch. pi 143 ;
Fohg't Charify TVwfaH v. Dwlfey
Corporation, (1910) 1 K. B. p. 322 ;
79 L. J. K. B. p. 413; Campbell
V. Paddinijtim Corporation, (1911) 1
K. B. 869, 874 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 743 ;
and see Att.-Qen. v. Lewes Corpora-
tion, (1911) 2 Ch. 495 ; 27 T. L. E.
581.

(«) Marriott v. Sad Oriadmd

OoM Oo.. (1908) 1 (%. 70 ; 78 L. J.

Ch. 141.

(y ) Mayor of Dtvouport v. Ply-
TMuth Tramwoft Co., 88 L. T.
161.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRB8PAS8.

Cfc>y- V- an action for an injunction vithout adducing evidence of
actual injury to the ^lie (k).

An officer of the Crown may be restrained from committing
a trespass purported to be done in pursuance of an xVct of
Parliament, bat, in fact, outside ttie atatetory aatiKnity (Q.
An action for trespass oammitted or intended is not maintain-
able against the Crown, or against any officials of the Crown
or Qoremment sued in their official capacity or as an official
body. Officers of State are liabls as ordinary individuals for
trespasses which they bsTS persmudly committed or ai^ho-
riaed (m).

TwjM*!* The principles ^Mn whidi the Court acta m restrmiiiut
or pablie faodiw. trMpass on the part of companies or bodies havmg compulsory
powers to take or enter upon or interfere with lands, differ in
some respects from those upon which it acts in restraining
trespass by individuals. A private person who applies for an
injunction to restrain a public company or body from entering
illegally on or interfering with his land is not required to
make out a ease at deskaetife trespass or irr^rabla
damage (n). The inability of private persons to contend with
these powerful bodies raises an equity for the prompt inter-
ference of the Court to keep tiiem from deviating from the
terms prescribed by the statute which gives them authority.
If they enter upon or interfere with a man's land without
taking the steps required by the statute, the Court will at
once interfere. A man has a rqfht to ny that they shall not
affect or interfere with his land by stirring one step out of
the exact limits prescribed by the statute. The principle upon

{k) At(.-(l,ii. V. Shmvtbiiri/ Oh. 73, 78, 79 ; 67 L. J. Oh. 39 ; flow.

Bridge Co., n C. I). 762 ; 51 L. J. Gh. bridge v. Poamaatr-amtrtd, (1906)

746; Ltmdon AfodatiMt nf 8k^ I IL B. 178, 193; 74 L. J. K. B.

ommn v. Ltmdm mi India Dmkt SM; we PHdgHm v. MtUor. (1913)

CmtMrliM. (lan) 3 870 ; « 28 T. L. R. 261 (TreMury solicitor).

L. J. Ch. p. 311 ; Att-Om. v. LoMhm (n) Liverjiool Varimration ?. Chor-

and Xorth rTerierH Bailiuay, (1899) 1 hy Waterworks Co.. 2 De O. M. i O.

aB. 72; 69L. J. Q. B. 20; .^tt.. 852, 860; Canliff CoTforation v.

Om. V. Barker, (1900) 83 L. T. 246. Cardiff Waterworkt Co., 4 De O. &

(/) NireakiTamalny. Baker,(^im\) 3. .MW; Marriott v. Ead QrinHead

A. C. 661, 576 ; 70 L. J. P. C. 8«. Hat and Water Co., (1909) 1 du 70 ;

(«•) lUiMgk y. C/McAoi, (ISK) 1 ISL. J.Ch. 141.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS. 118

which the Court grants relief in such cases is not so much the c>«» V.
nature of tiie trespass as the necessity of keeping such bodies
within control (o) . It is incumbent upon such bodies to jmwe
clearly ami aistinctly from the statute the existence of the
power which they claim a right to exercise. If there is any
doubt with regard to the extoit of the power elaimed by them,
that doubt must he for the benefit of the landowner, and should
not be solved in a manner to gire to the company any power
that u sot dearly and rainessiy defined in the statute (p).
A company authorist d by the legislature to take land com-
pulsorily for a definite object, will, it attempting to take it
for any other object be restrained by the Court (g). Public /
bodies invested with statutory powers must take care to keep '
within the limits of the authority committed to them, and in
carrying out their powers, must act in good faith and reason-
ably and with 8<mie regard to the interest of those who may
suffer for the good of the community (,>). The Court has not
only jurisdiction to interfere to restrain a company from affect-
ing a man's land by stirring out of the exact limits prescribed
by the statute which gives them authority, but will, as a matter
of course, interfere (»), unless no iujrry has &iamx or is likely

(o) A'env y. LemAm w»d Brighton North London ttaHway t'o., L. B. 4

I^ilimty Co., 1 Ba. Ca. *96, SOi ; Ch. 822; 17 W. E. 746.

Freirin v. Levii, 4 M. & C. 249, (,) Galloway v. Ara,/. (Wjwra-

•2m ; 48 B. B. 88; Pinchin v. /.on- Hon, L. R. 1 H. L., 34, 4;i ; 35 L. J.

'hn ami Uhrk tcaU Ilaihra,/ Co., 5 Ch. 477 ; London and y„rth ft ettern

I »o O. M. & O., p. 860 ; 24 L. J. CU. Jtailwa:, Co. v. IVeHminrier Corpora.

117; 1(H R. R. 810; !<utU,n v. <ton,(l}«)4) 1 Ch. p. 770; 73 L. J.Oi.

Mayer of Norwich, 27 L. J. Ch., p. 390 (reversed on other gmmdi,

pp. 741, 742; .fiaymr t. St^mtg (1906) A. C. 486 ; 74 L. J. Ch. «S1).

CorporaHm, (IMl) 3 S12; 80 And aee AU.-Om. r. Frimley and

L. J. Oh. 878. Whm • loeal Famborough ITattr Co., (1908) 1

authority was rwtraiaed from en- Ch. 727 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 442.
forcing a closing order under the (r) Wenimimtfr Corjmmfion v.

Housing, etc.. Act, 1909, the order Lonloit and North-WesUm Rdlirai/

not containing the statutory note Co. (1905) A. C. 430, 433 ; 74 L. J.

iriforining tho landowner of his Ch. 629, 633.
1 ight of appeal to the Local Govern- (») See River Dun Navigation Co.

nioiit Hoard. v. North Miihnd AitltM^ Co., 1

(;-) «»m/«o» T. South StuforU- Ba. Cik. p. IM; AU.-Oen. y. Jfirf-

>hire Railvay »>., 34 1.. J. Ch. 380. A«ii<, tic., &Mwag Co., 3 Ch. 100

387; 4 D.O. J.*&68«: LmAr. 104; Att..am.r. LmtimtmdS^

K.I.

8

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

to arise, or unless the injury, if any has arisen, is so small
as to be hardly capable of being appreciated by damages (t),
or unless the remedy by damages is adequate and sufficient, or
is, under the circumstances of the case, the proper remedy (»),
or unless the trespass is one merely of a temporary natare(v).
In a case where a company acting hand fide had taken posses-
sion of property by mistake, and the question at issue between
the company and the landowner was only a questi<m of valae,
the Court would not interfere, there being no evidence to show
any culpable negligence on the part of the company (w). Lord
Bomilly, M.B., thought himself justified in taking into con-
sideration in such a case flie inconvenience which the public
would be exposed to from granting the injunction (x). So,
also, where a corporation in executing works under statutory
powers inadvertently trespassed on the plaintiffs land, the
Court awarded damages as the injury to the plaintiff was small
while the removal of the works would have cost a considerable
sum {y). The Court will not restrain the completimi of
works authorised by statute simply because the company has

WeMtfm Builwai/ Co., (1900) 1 Q. B.
78, 09 L. J. Q. B. 29, and Saiinby
V. Loniltm (Out.) Kafer f'om-
miuionert, (1906) ; A. C. 110, 115;
75 L. J. P. C. 27; WeHmintUr
Corporation v. Lmdon and Jforth
ir««mt RaHtBi^ Co., (1906) A. C.
426 ; 74 L. J. Ch. S29 ; Marriott v.
Satt Grituttad Oat Co., (1909)
I Ch. 70 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 141 ; I'lgnott
r. Middleaex County Council, (1909)
1 Ch. 143, 144 ; 77 L. J. Ch.
813.

(<) Wanltn nf Dover Harhour v.
South Eatttrn Sailway Co., 9 Hs. p.
493; 21 L. i. Ch. 8M; Wart r.
a»gm»(t Ocmia Co., S De O. * J.
2ia.229;28L. J.Ch. 103; mB.R.
80; Wanilfworth Board of !!'</»*» v.
Lonilon and South We»ltrn Haihmi/
Co., :n L. ,T. Ch. 854 ; rhwlhi;/ V.
Pouli/iiool, etc., Railimi/ Co., 18 E(i.
714; 43 li. J. Ch. 7B1 But sco
Ooodtm T. JUehardum, 9 Ch. 221 ;

43 L. T. Ch. 790; and .Varriott v.
Eait Orinitead Oat Co., (190!») 1
Ch. 70; 78 L. J. Ch. 141.

(tt) Turner r. Blamire, 1 Drew.
402 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 766 ; 94 B. B.
734.

(v) Standiih v. Mai/or of Liver-
pool, 1 Drew. 1; 94 B. B. 571.
See 8 ft 9 Vict. c. 20, w. 32- 42, an
t<) the powers (rivon to railway
companies to take temporary pos-
seraion of land.s abutting on the
intended railway for certain pur-
posen.

(w) Wood V. Charing Cram Bail'
uay Co., 38 BwT. 290 ; Dowting r.

Pontypool Caerleon,eie.,Satiwaj/ Co.,
18 Eq. 714, 747; 43 L. J. Ch.
7fil.

(x) Wval V. Charing Crnst Hail-
ivfty < 'o., aiijira.

(,v) Riley V. Halifax Corporation,
(1907) 97 L. T. 378; S9 T. L. B.
613.

116

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

exceeded its powers, if the excess be abandoned and satisfac-
ti(m be made for any injury caused, either by payment of
money or by restoration in fact (z).

If a company is in possession under a title acquired through Injanction
the apparent owner of the property, the Court will not in JCT^c^TitoSto,
general, at the suit of a penon alleging an adverse title, inter' "»'■■■''■•
fere to restrain the company from continuing in posses-
sion (a), but if land has been taken by a company improperly,
or if the conduct of the cmnpany has be«i Texatious, unreason-
able, or oppressive, the Court may restrain them from con-
tinuing in podsession until a proper compensation has been
made (b).

In spite of the view expressed by Lord Eldon in Agar't
case (c), it seems to be now established that a landowner can-
not maintain a suit to restrain a company from exercising
their ooropulsory powers over his land on the ground either
of the resources of the company being insufficient for the com-
pletion of the undertaking, or of a material variation being
made or intended to he made in the construction of tiie worta ;
unless the plaintiff can prove to the satisfaction of the Court
that he will suffer actual and material prejudice by the com-
pany's failure to complete the undertaking, or by the proposed
variation, as the case may be ^d).

Where persons are empowered by the legislature to take Ptmm,
lands compulsorily for tiie purposes of an undertaking, Ujey SErtJITlifci

iMdtMV tab

(;) See fVettminater >'orjioration
V. London and So.-th Wnttrn Bail-
way Co., (1905) A. C. at p. MO; 74
L. J. Gh. at p. 636.

(n) ]Veh$trr v. South Eattem
RaUwaji Co., 1 Sim. N. a 272 ; 30
L. J. Ch. 194.

(6) Berk* T. iryeomi* tUMwa^
Co., 3 Oi«. 686, 673 ; Lord XeUon
V SalUbnrjf and Dornt llnilway
Co., 16 W. R. 1074; (1868) W. N.
lf<0; Strettim v. Urtat Wetttrn
/tat/way i o., L. R. 6 Ch. 751.

('•) Coop. 77; H R. R. 217 ;
cited 1 8w. 250; aadMO Blakemort

V. Glamorganthire Railway Co., 1
My. & K. 154, 164 ; 2 L. J. (N. a)
Ch. 95 ; 36 R. R. 289.

(d) See HUyoalet t. Shrtwtbury
and Birminghtm Mailtuay Co., S
Ba. Ok 43i; Wintle v. BrUM and
Sottlh Watt* Union Railway Co., 10
W. R. 210; 125 R. R. 946; Zee v.
Miln^, 2 Y. & C, Ex. 611 ; 47
R. R. 463; Salmon v. Randall, 3
M. & C. 439, 445; 43 H. R. 306;
Ware v. Rrgenl't Canal Co., 3 Be O.
&J. 217, 228; 28 L. J. Ch. IM;
121 B. B. 80.

8— a

116

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

vbattheyikall
10 long *« thcra

are the proper judges of what land they need (e). They may
take aa mnch land aa they deem necessary for the proper e(m>

struction of the works which they arc authorised to make, and
of the works incidental to the main purpose of the undertaking,
provided they aet bond fide ; but they may be restrained from
eiereising those powers for any purpose of a collateral kind,
that is, fmr any purposes except those for which the legislature
has inTested them with extraordinary powers (/). An injunc-
tion will, accordingly, be granted to restrain a company which
has powei to takn land from taking the same for the purposes
of anotlier company which has not power to take the land (g).
Although a company, having power to take land, may not take
it for the purjiose of another company which has not power to
take it, a company which has legally taken land may enter
into an agreement with another company for the joint use of
it. The arrangement between the companies does not vitiate
the title which the company has acquired to the land (h). If
there is evidence to show that a company is taking land which
is not bond fide reqaired for the pnqwr purposes of tiie under-

(e) Slocklon and Darlington Rail-
way Co. V. fln/itw, 9 n. L. C. 286 ;
Ltwit T. Wr*'<m-*iiprr-Mare Local
Board, 40 C. D. U, 62 ; S8 L. J.
Ch. 39 ; Limdon an'! Ntirtk Wttlern
Rai^n ay Co. v. W- 4mi»sftr Cor.
pnraium, (1904) 1 ("h. 766; 73
L. J. Ch. p. 39(1 (reversed on other
grounds lu H. L.); (1905) A. C.
426, 433 ; 74 L. J. Ch p. fi.Jl ; niid
see Pe-r v. liritihlon <\>rj>orat<on,
(1907) 23 T. L. B. 442.

(/) Wtbb V. Manrhtfter and
Le«ii BaUwatf 0>., 4 U. ft C. 116;
48 B. B. 28; Stockton and DarHmg.
ton Bailtray Co. y. Brovm, 9
n. L. C. 256; Simpson r. South
Staffnrdfhire Walenrorka Co., 4 Do
J. & S. f;79, 689 ; 34 I,. J. Ch. 3S0 ;
Gall.iway v. Mayor, rlr., n/ /..m/im,
1 L. R. H. L., 43 ; Le^fit JVrttnn-
inper-Mare l.ncnl Hoard, 40 C. I).
66, 62 ; 6S L. J. Ch. 39, 43 ; Jame$
T. Lova, 36 W. B. 628; Stnmd t.

Wanihworth Ditirirt Board of
Workt, (1894) 1 Q. B. 68; 63 L. J.
M. 0. 88 ; BattoH cmd Jcywer
LoikiiM Stkeol Board, (1903) 20
T. L. R. 23; London and North
Western RaUivay Co. Wettmirtsttr
Corjxyration, (1904) 1 Ch. 772; 73
L. J. f h. 390 (reveroed on the
facts, (1905) A. ('. 426; 74 L. J.
Ch. 629); llradthatr y. Ilray C. D.
C., (1907) 1 Ir. 158 ; Rct v. Rn-ihton
: itrporntiim, (1907; 23 T. L. R. 441 ;
*«! Jtf.-Ot». \. Frimtejf and Fam-
bonmgh n'ater Co., (1906) 1 Cb. 727 ;
77 L. J. C3h. 442.

(g) Wood V. Epsom and Leather-
hearl R-iilwaij Co., 8 ('. B. N. S.
731 : 30 L. J. C. P. 82 ; 125 R. B.
863 ; Vane v. Corkermoiith and
Iktrlinyton Railway Co., 13 W. R.
1015.

(A) Wood V. Epsom and Leather-
head Railway Co., 8 C. B. N. 8. 731 ;
»)L.J.C.P.82; 12SB.B.Ma.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

taking, it is not enough that the engineer of the company may
have made an afllibTit tiiat the land is or would be wanted for

the purposes of the undertaking. The purposes must be
specified so that the Court may judge whether the land is
bond fide required (t). But the moment the Court is aatisfied
with the bona fides and honesty of the engineer, that ia lufi-
cient (j). The burden of proving want of bona fidet rests
upon the party opposing the purchase (k). If there is no
ground to suspeet mols fidtt, the Court will gire eredit to the
testimony of the engineer as to the quantity of land required
for the purposes of the undertaking, or as to what would be a
proper execution of the wwks (I). If there is more than one
way of making the works which the company is autiMnuad to
make, and if the company are acting bond fide, the company
by their engineer are the sole judges of the way to be
adopted (m). Whether land is necessary fw tiie purposes of
the undertaking is a question of fact for a jur^ (n). But
everything which is reasonably required for the purpose of
completing the undertaking which the etmipany are autiiorised
to make, such, for instance, as land for accommodation works,
etc., ib land required for the purposes of the undertaking (o).

Where the legislature has conceded powers to a emnpany
for a certain purpose (e.g., the formation of a railway), sudi a
company must not, in order to effect its objects, exceed the
limits of its powers. But where an existing public body, such
as the corpwaticm of a eity, is mtrusied by the legislatare witii

117

(•) Flower t. London, BrighUm,
and South Coatt BaUvay Co., 2
Dr. & 8m. 330 ; 34 L. J. Ch. S40 ;
A'«n;i v. Soil < A EaUem Bailway Co.,
7 Ch. 364, 375 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 404 ;
LtwU r. Wmim-mfm-Main Local
A>ar<l,40O.D.«,6S,68; ML.X
Ch. 43.

U) WiOdiucn T. HM, lU., RaU-
ivay and Dock Co., 20 C. D. 323 ; 51
L. J. Ch. 788 ; Lewii v. Wuton Loeal
Board, 40 C. D. p. 68 ; 68 L. J. Ch.43.

(A) ErringUmv. MttropolUimDii.
trict Railway Co., 19 0. D. «W,
571 : 61 L. J. Ch. 904.

(I) T. CMm ra%, etc.. Bail-
vmt Co., low. B. 661 ; 126 B. B.960.

(«•) Wilkin»nn v. Hull, etc., BtdU
wag tmd Dock Co., 30 0. D. 8U;
61 L. J. Ok. 788; Me Jte t.
A%Um OrponOkm (1907), 23
T. L. B. 441 ; and we Dtmifhy y.
Montreal Light Co. (MOT) A. a 4M;
76 L. J. P. C. 71.

(n) Doe V. North StaffortUhire
Railway Co., 16 Q. B. 626 ; 20 L. J.
Q. B. 249; 83B.B.677.

(o) Wakinmm HuU, tfe., BoU.
wot) and DoA 0*^ » a D. MS;
SlL.J.ClL7tt.

118 INJUNCTIONS AnAlNS? TRESPASS.

^- the duty of making public improrementa, the powers thun
•ntriittcd to it will net he rabje<4 to • atriet mmI rMtrtetiT*

construction (p).

Undi CkiuM The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (q) in luittilj inoor-
Art,**'* po rated with all Acts giving corporations power to take land.

IMA. Where the comiMny is a railway company, the Railways

Clauses Consolidation Act (8 9 Vict. c. 20), as wt ll as the
Lands Clauses Act, is generally incorporated with the i iul
Aet in all eM<ia where tiie special Aet has been obtained Since
the enactment of the two general Act'^. Thesr Acts, however,
do not interfere with private contracts. They were intended
oa\y to apply where the parties hare omitted, or are muMe
to determi'ie tin m rights by agreement, and will not be allowed
to override or control the provisions of a deed deliberately
raeeated for the purpose of determining the rights of parties
and in which they are not referred to (r).

All companies incorporating these two Acts with their own
special Act are bound to adhere strictly to the powers of taking
land prescribed by these Aets, and to proceed <»ly in the
mode and with the formalities required by them. The
attempt to take or enter upon lands otherwise than in
aeecnrdanee with the mode pointed out by these Acts, except
in so far as they may be modified by the special Act incor-
porating the company, is a trespass, and will be restrained by
injunction (a).

(/.) Oallownif V. Mai/or, He, of (</) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18.

Loudon, 1 I.. R. II. L. M ; Korth (r) Sawltrson v. Cocltermouth and

London Rnilirnij v. MetrojHilitan Worlcinyton Railway Co., 19 L. J.

Board of ]\;,rkt, 1 John. 405 ; 28 Ch. 603 ; Clarke v. Manehitkr,

L. J.Cb.»0;i, 12.) P.. R. 166; Bolt$ Sheffield, ond LincoltMir* Batiuag

\ . Sihwl Ikurd i,f London, 27 0. D. Co., lj.it 631.

63», 643; Leuiu y. Wea4m-*iper- («) F«*$ T. Wilti, Bemt-eet.mid

Mart Local Board, 40 0. D. 55, WtfmotM BMway Co., 5 Ha. 199 ;

68; SSL. J. Ch. 89, 42; Stroud v. Stoni v. Qmnmrial Railway Co.,

WandtworthDutrict Board of ff^ork*, 4 M. & C. 122; 48 R. B. 32 ;

(1891) 1 a. 15. p. 08; 63L.J.M.C. Sihu-inye v. Lmdm and Blarhmll

88. '.(1; and see Hill v. Wnllasty Bai'iray Co., 3 Sin. & O. 30; 21

Loral Hoard, (1894) 1 Ch. 133; ()3 L. J. Ch. 408; 107 B. R. 3 ; Onui

L. J. Ch. 3; but see AU.-(Jen. v. HWem Railway Co. y. Swindon

L. C. C, (1901) 1 Ch. p. 788; (1902) Railway Co., 22 C. D. 677 ; 62 h. J.

A. C. 165. Ch. 306 ; 9 A. C. T37 ; 63 L. J. Ch.

IKIUNCTIONS AOAtMST TtdSftPABS.

By sect. 18 • oonpany, before taking or entering upon c^.^.
lands iriiieh titey w MttboriMd to teko, moit mm apon the Swt is.

1;, 'owner or persons interested therein, or enabled by the
Act to sell and convey the same, a notice to treat, specifying
the laad wbitk they require (i). Notiee to trwt moit b*
senred <m the tcoMite nbo have ui interest in the land (u),
every lessee and Bub-leaaee being entitled to a sepafste
notice ( ir ) . But notice to treat need not be served upon
tenants iriio hold on quarterly or other short tenancies, if the
compuny iicquires the rcverHlon and gives notice to quit
ti rminHting before it enters upon the land (x). Notice to
treat should be served upon mmrtgagees as well as opon tiM
mortgagor (//). Where notice to treat was served only upon
the mortgagor, and the corporation duly proceeded thereunder
and entered into possession and then served the mortgagee
with a notice to treat, it was held that the conii>any were not
precluded by having taken posbcasion from exercising their
statutory right to give notice to treat to the mortgagee, and the
mortgagee's application for an injunction to restrain the cor-
poration proceeding on their notice to treat was refused (y).
If the lands are in the possession of a receiver, or of the com-
mittee of • hamtie i^pointed fagr tiie Court* tiie company sboaM
make a speeial appIicatioD to the Ckmrt. If ttiqr i^oeeed.

107A: Battmnutd Jefmr r. Ltmim

School Bttmt{\m). 20 T. L. B. 23 :
PiggoU v. MUdUmx Coimfy Cotmct/,
(1909) 1 Oku pw 144; 77 L. J.Cli.

813.

(<) See Mariiu v. London, Chat-
ham and Dover Railway Co., 1 Ch.
501 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 795 ; SirtOon v.
Qrtat Wti*tm Baiiwag Co., S Ch.
761 ; 40 L. J. Ch. M; IkmU»t v.
I'ontypod, tie., Saihsmf Co., It Kq.
714 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 761 ; FrtttUro v.
Tottenham and Fareri Qate Railway
Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 278. The placing
of a post under the powers of a
local Act (which incorporated the
Lands Claoaes Consolidation Act,
1846), in the Mil under the pave-

mant tor the paipow «t wathiag
tramways wM lidd not to be a

taking of land w to make Mot. 18
apply : Etcolt v. Mayor of Newport,
(1904) 2 K. B. 369 ; 73 L. J. K. B.
693.

(u) Rogtri V. Hull Dork Company,
34 L. J. Ch. 166.

(iff) Abrahamt j. Mayor, etc^
£«HiMh6Bi}.«6;37L.J.C9L733.

(tf ) 8ff$it V. MnlfcpttittM Boufd ^
Woi*», 36 L. T. 277 ; Ex parU
Nadin, 17 L. J. Ch. 421 ; Reg.
PouUer, 20 Q. B. D. 132 ; 57 L. J.
Q. B. 138; and see sect. 121.

(v) Vookt V. / ondon County Coun-
c«;, (1011)1 OL «•{ W L. J.Oh.
426.

120

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

Ch>p. V. without the sanction of the Court, to enforce their statutory
powers, an injunction may be obtained to restrain them (z).
Entry on a person's land which is not included in the notice
to treat is a trespass, although a subsequent notice to treat
be served in respect of such land (a).

The notice to treat should state accurately the quantity and
situation of the land required (b). A. plan is generally annexed
to the notice (o treat. If any mistake is made on tho face of the
plan the company will be unable to enter upon any land which
may be omitted (c). Notice that land is wanted for the pur-
poses of a railway is sufficient ; and accordingly the notice
need not state that the land is wanted for the purposes of a
station (d). A company is not bound to comprise the whole
of the land which they may require in the first notice, but may
from time to time, until the compulsory powers expire, serve
fresh notices to the same landowner for taking any additional
land which may be requisite for the works (e).
Effect of notice After notice to treat has been given neither party can get
totiMt. ^jjg obligation. The relationship of vendor and pur-

chaser is to a certain extent, and for certain purposes, created
by giving the notice (/). The land to be taken is fixed, leaving
only the price to be ascertained ; the landowner can still sell
his land subject to the notice to treat, but he cannot create any

(z) Me Taylor, 6 Ba. Ca. 741 ; 1
Mac. & O. 210 ; Tink t. liundlc, 10
Beav. ;il8; 76 11. E. l;}9 ; Itkhardt
V. llii hurds, John. 256 ; 123 R. R.
102.

(n) Carilwell v. Midland Railway
Co., (1903) 20 T. L. B.364; (1804)
21 T. L. B. 22.

(6) StoM v. CommertM Railway
Co., 4 M. ft C. 122 ; 48 R. R. 32.

(f) Kemp V. London, Brighton,
f^■., Railway >'„., 1 Ra. Cu. 495.
Sic, huwever, as to the correction
ol mistakes in tho plans and books
of reference of a railway company,
8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, 8. 7 ; Keinp v.
Weet End Railway Co., 1 K. & J.
669; 103 B. B. 331, and m to the

importance of the plana being
accurate : Herron v. Bathminei

Improvetneiit Cointnimonen, (1898)
A. C. 498, 013.

(</) Woiid V. KjiKm and Leather-
head Railway Co., 8 C. B. N. S. 731 ;
80 L. J. C. P. 82 ; 125 E. B. 863.

(e) Stamp* r. Birmingham and
Stour ValUg Bailuny Co., 2 Fh.
673 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 431 ; 78 B. B.
240 ; Simpton v. Laiicatter Railway
Co., 15 Sim. 580; Kemp v. South
Eadirn Railway Co., 7 Ch. 306 ; 41
L. J. Ch. 404; aee 26 * 27 Vict,
r 92, 8. 8.

(/) Marijuit of Salitbiiry v.
Oreat Northern Bailway Co., 17
Q. B. S40; 31 L. J. 0. B. IM; 86

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPASS.

121

interest therein to the prejudice of the company (g). The Cl»*p. V.
landowner to whom the notice ia given {h), and the company
giving the notice are equally bound (i). The notice cannot be
recalled or varied without the consent of the landowner (;),
" if he insists upon holding them to it ; but it is other-
wise if the landowner for any reason either chooses to allow
them to withdraw the notice or admits that it ia informal or
bad in any way " (fc) . The landowner, however, cannot accept
the company's notice as to part of the land, and treat them
as bound by it, and repudiate the notice as to the rest of the
land. If the landowner repudiates the notice to treat, it can be
withdrawn altogether, and the company cannot be compelled
to proceed with that part of the notice which is acceptable
to the landowner (2). The company cannot set up that there
are no funds to go on with the undertaking (m). But the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests were held entitled to

E. R. 691 ; A(lam» v. London and
Bhuhwall Railway Co., 1 Mac. & O.
118; 19 L. J. Ch. 557; 86 R. R.
37 ; Haynet v. Haynet, 1 Dr. ft Sm.
126, 400 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 578 ; Tivtr-
ton OMd North Devon BaUwap Co.
Looimnrt, 9 A. 0. 488, 003 ; S3 L. J.
Ch. 812 ; Mereer y. Liverpool Sail-
timy Co., (1903) 1 K. B. 662, 661 ; 72
L. J. K. B. 132 ; (1904) A. C. 461 ;
73 L. J. K. B. 962 ; Wild v. Wool-
tnieh Borough Council, (1909) 2 Ch.
293, 294 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 63U ; (1910)
1 Ch. 30; 79 L. J. Oh. 13a

(y) Stwtll T. Harrow and Ux-
hridy. Railway, (19)3) 19 T. L. &
130; (1904) 20 T. L. B. 21;
Mercer y. Liitrpool Railway Co.,
luiira ; Dairmn v. Oreut Northern
and City IJailtvay Co., (1906) 1
K. B. 268 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 194 ;
y.ick V. London Untied Tramway$
Co., (1908) 1 K. B. 616 ; 77 L. J.
K. B. 316; (1908) 3 K. B. 186; 77
L. J. K. B. 940.

(A) Mobrofotitan Sailway Co.
H'odeAaHM, 34 L. J. Ch. 297 ;

Brisldl, etr.. Railway Co. v. Somermt,
etc.. Railway Co., 22 W. R. 399.

(»■) Sparrmo v. Or/ord, Worceifer
and Wolvirhampton Railway Co., 9
Ha. 436; 3 Da G. M . ft O. 94 ; 31
L. J. Ch. 731 ; 95 R. R. 21.

{f) Tawneif v. Lynn and Ely
Railway Co., 16 L. J. Ch. 383 ; 73
R R. 771.

{k) Athlon Vale Iron Co. v. Britlol
Corporation, (1901) 1 Ch. p. 699;
70 L. J. Ch. 23:), j«r Homer, L.J.

(1) Haynet v. Hayntt, 1 Dr. & Sra.
450 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 078, 081 ;
Wild T. Wodwiek Benmgk Oounea,
(1909) 2 Ch. p. 394 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
639 ; (1910) 1 CSi. 30; 79 L. J. C%.
130.

(m) Rex V. Ilungerford Market
Co., 4 B. & Ad. 327 ; 38 R. R. 253 ;
Birch V. Mari/lelmie Vettry, 17
W. E. 1014 ; Reg. v. Commi»»iontri
of HWi ani FortOt, 16 Q. B. 773 ;
19 L. J. Q. B.497 ; 81B.B.794;
fitafa Jfiqper of lAmttA, 14
W, B. 811.

12S

iKJtNCnONB AGAINST TBSSPASS.

V- recede from a notice to treat, <m the ground of a deficiency of
funds (n). Notice to treat will be considered as abandoned
if there is great delay in proceeding under it (o). When
the notice to treat is met by a counter notice, under the 92nd
section of the Act, requiring the company to take the whole
the property, the company may recede from the notice and
refuse to take any part (p), and the company may afterwards,
if they wish, serve a fresh notice in respect of the same land,
or any part thereof, and upon that being validly withdrawn
may serve a third notice, and so on during the time limited by
their special Act for the exercise of compulsory powers (q).
Where a landowner has waived the service of notice, he cannot
take an objection for wunt of it (r).
BMMMato. Section 18 of the Act does not apply to easements («). It is
not necessary to serve the owner of a mere easement, as a
way-leave over the property (t). Easements may, however,
come within the Act when taken in connection with the special
Act (m). Where an easement is interfered with the remedy

(m) Seg. T. Committimert of
Wood* and FvrtUi, 16 Q. B. 773;
19 L. J. a B. 497 : 81 B. B. 794.

(o) Hedgtt t. MelropoliUm Bail-
loay Co., 28Beay. 109; \m B. B.
48. Sec Ituhmonil :. Xorth London
Railway Co., A Ch. G79; 37 li. J.
Ch. 886; Yitalijftra Iron Co. v.
Neath ami Brecon Railway Co., 17
Bq. ISO; 43 L. J. Ch. 476; 7'»»er-
(on and North Devon RaUuiay *.
Loomnort, 9 A. 0. p. 4W; 53 L. J.
Ch. 820.

(p] Reg. T. London and South
Western Railway Co., 12 Q. B. 775 ;
17 L. J. Q. B. 326 ; King v. Wycombe
Raibvay Co., 28 Beav. 104 ; 29 L. J.
Ch. 462 ; 126 B. H. 45 ; Orierton v.
Chethire Linet Cummittte, 19 Eq.
83 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 35 ; Thompton v.
Tctttnlam and Fontt CMt BaUway
Co., 67 L. T. 416 ; Will v. Wool-
with Borough Councti (1910), 1 Ch.
38 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 1-30.

(j) AthUm Vale Iron Co., Ltd. v.

Mayor, etc., of Bristol, (1901) 1 Ch.
591 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 49 W. B. 295.

(r) Bex T. 8o¥ih Holland Drain-
oye, 8 A. ft E. 429 ; 8 L. J. (N. S.)
a B. 64 ; 47 B. B. 618 ; Tower v.
Ealtern Vountiet Railway To., 3 Ba.
Ca. 374 ; Lt/neh v. CommiMionert of
Sewtr$, 32 0. D. 72 ; 65 L. J. Ch.
409.

(a) Hnchin v. Lomlun and Dlack-
vrnll RaUway Co., 5 De O. M. & O.
862 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 104 B. B.
810; BtBarrow-in-Fwmett Corpora-
tion and Bawlinmn'i Contract, (1903)
1 Ch. p. 350 ; 72 L. J. Ch. p. 239.

(<) Thiclcneatev. Lancashire Canal
Co., 4 M. & W. 472 ; 8 li. J. (N. 8.)
Ex. 49 ; 51 E. B. 692.

(m) (Jrtat Western Railway Co. v.
Swindon, etc.. Railway ('o., 9 A.
C. 810; 53 L. J. Ch. 1075; ffitt
T. Midland BaUway Co., 21 0. D.
143; 51 L. J. Ch. 774; and see
Farmer v. Waterloo and City Rail-
way, (1896) 1 Ch. 527 ; 64 L. J. Ch.

LANDS CLAUSES ACT.

128

of the dominant owner is to apply for compensation onder c^p-

section 68 of the Act and not for an injunction or damages (x).

There has been much difference of opinion whether, after Contract
the service of notice to treat, the landowner and the company notioe'to*trMt
are brought within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court as
to the specific performance of contracts. After an elaborate
review of all the authorities, KindersLy, V.-C, held that,
though to a certain extent and for certain purposes the notice
to treat places the parties in the relation of vendor and pur-
chaser, and involves some of the consequences which flow
from actual contract, it does not amount to a contract which
a Court of Equity will enforce upon a bill for specific per-
forniunce, even when filed by a landowner against the com-
pany, still less that it constitutes a contract by the landowner
to sell his land (y). But a notice to treat, followed by the
subsequent fixing by arbitration of the purchase and com-
pensation money, does create an enforceable contract (z) , The
company are bound to take a conveyance from the landowner,
and cannot claim to complete by merely paying the purchase
money into Court and taking possession (a).

By sect. 84 the promoters of an undertaking are forbidden SecUou 84.
to take poMession of lands until after payment of the

338 ; Barrow-in-Furness f'orporalion
and Raw'iruou'$ Contract, note (a)
iupra; City and South London SaU-
tray v. 8t. Mary Wbcliutk, (1903)
•2 K. B. p. 737 ; 72 L. J. K. B. W4;
(19<)5) A. C. 1 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 147.

(x) Clark y. School Hoard for
London, 9 Ch. 120; 43 L. J. Ch
421 ; Wigram r. Fryer. 36 C. D. 9S ;
66 L. J. Ch. 1098 ; Kirbij v. School
Board/or Harrogate, (1896) 1 Ch.
442; 66L. J. Ch.376; L<mg Eaton
BermUiom Oroimd Co. t. Midland
Railway Co., (1903) 2 K. B. 5*3;
71 L. J. K. B. 837.

{y) Adami y. London and Bluck-
irall Railway Co., '2 Mac. & O. 118 ;
19 L. J. Ch. 557 ; S6 E. E. 37 ;
Haynu v. Hayne*, 30 L. J. Ch. 678 ;

1 Dr. & Sm. 426, 444 ; Tiverton and
North Devon Railway Co. y. Loom-
mart, 9 A. C. 4S0, &U ; In rt Oary-
Elwtt Cmtroei, (1906) 3 Ch. p. 149 ;
75 L. J. Ch. 674.

(z) Matm y. Stoket Bay Pier and
Railway Co., 32 L. J. Ch. 110;
Harding v. Metropolitan Railway
Co., 7 Ch. 154 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 371 ;
Rigint'$ Canal Co. v. Ware, 23 Beav.
575; 26 L. J. Ch. 666; IHggott y.
Great Wtiltm Railway Co., 18 C. D.
146; AO L. J. di. 679 ; Jb Cbry-
£7i0W, Ckmtract, (1906) 2 Ch. 143,
148 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 671, 674 ; Wild
y. Woolwich Borough Council, (1910)

1 Ch. pp. 4 1 , 42 ; 79 L. J. Ch. p. 130.
(ci) Ec < 'ary-El:Lxs ( 'imlrad, (1908)

2 Ch. 143 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 671.

124

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

purchase monies in the mode prescribed in the Act, provided
always that they may, upon a certain notice therein specified,
enter upon lands for the purpose of surveying the ground
or setting out the line. The making a tunnel under a high-
way, without disturbing the surface, is an entry upon land
...thin the section (6). A company will be restrained by in-
junction from entering upon land until the monies awarded
have been paid or deposited, as required by the section (c).
When a company enter upon land for the purposes of making
a survey without giving the notice required by the section, they
may be restrained (d).

By sect. 85, where a company is desirous of takinp pos-
session before any agreement has been entered into, wward
made or verdict given, it is authorised to do so upon payment
into the bank of the sum claimed by any party, who shall net
conser', or such as shall be determined by a surveyor, ap-
pointed by two justices, to be the value of the property, and
giving a bond with two sureties for payment of th< purchase
monies and compensation to be ascertained under the pro-
visions of the Act. It is incumbent on those who seek to avail
themselves of the provisions of the section to show clearly
and satisfactorily that they have fulfilled its conditions and
complied with its requisitions (e) . .

Where a landowner refuses to allow a company to enter
upon land on which they are entitled to enter under sect. 85,
but does not actually resist their entry, they are justified in
entering peaceably without calling on the sheriff under
sect. 91, to give possession (/).

{/<) Ramtden v. Manchttttr, etc.,
Batiway Co., I Ezch. 723. 6 Ba. Ca.
662 ; 74 B. B. 890; Farmer v.
Waitrloo and City Jtailway Co.,
(1896) 1 Ch. 527 ; 64L. J. Ch. 338.

(r) Lee v. Milmr, 2 Y. & C. 617 ;
47 It. B. 4G3 ; llirmitiyhum and
District ' vid Co. v. I.ondt n and
Nurth Western Huiluay Co., 36
C. D. 660 ; 57 L. J. Ck. 121,
■ffirmod, iO C. D. 2fi8.

(rf) See 1W» WilU, Sorittmtt,

and Weynti Uth Railittly Co., 6 H&.
199, 4 Ba. Ca. 210.
(f) Barker t. IftHh "'.affordthire

Railway Co., 2 De 0. & S. 55. 5
Ba. Ca. 401 ; 79 B. B. 126 ; Field v.
('timarvon and Llanhirit Railway
Co., 0 Eq. liH) ; 37 L. J. Ch. 176.

(/) I,oosem<.re v. Tiverton and
North Devon Railway Co., 22 C. D.
41 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 670 ;» A. C. 480;
SSL. J. Cb.812.

LANDS CLAUSES ACT.

12S

Section 85 applies only to lands taken, and not to lands CWr. T.
injuriously affected by the works (g). Scotion 8S doe*

Possession should not be taken by a company until a settle- 1" n.u''fnjarioa.iy
ment has been come to with all parties interested. The taking *^«t«<>-
possession after a settlement with the persons in possession iT^^litx"^
only is erroneous, and contrary to the provisions of the Act(fc). ^
In cases of the sort, the Court will usually, on the motion for
an injunction, order it to stand over upon the terms of the
company undertaking to lodge the money, and giving the usual
bond under this section of the Act (i).

Persons who take lands irtiieh they are authorised to take, Pirtie* who Uy
with the consent of owners or occupiers, cannot afterwards be ^JguUHT^n'^"
treated as trespassers (fc). Where a railway company had ^ -
complied with the provisitms of the section, and had entered ''"**'""*
and taken land within the prescribed period for exercising the
compulsory powers, their continuance in possession after the
prescribed period without haring the compensation assessed
and the land conveyed to them was held lawful (l).

By sect. 92 it is enacted that " no party shall at any time Stction 92.
be required to sell or convey to the promoters of the under- CompMiy eumot
takit^ a part <mly of any house, or other building, or mann- tat^'^Irtof
factory, if such party be willing and able to sell and convey the '
whole thereof." Owners under disability may avail themselves

(7) Hidton V. Londt.n and South
Wedern Raihony Co., ' Ha. 262;
18 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 82 R. R. 99 ;
Lister v. Lobley, 7 A. 4 E. 124 ; 6
L. J. K. B. 200; Maeeg v. Metro-
poliUtn Board iff Wbrk$,3»'L.J.Ck.
377.

(A) Inijr V. Birmingham, Jf'olver-
hamplon and Stour Vallty Railway
Co., 3 De O. M. & G. 666 ; 98 E. E.
274 ; Martin v. London, Chatham,
and fhver Raihnay Co., 1 Ch. 501 ;
3.; L. J. Ch. 800 ; but see aa to settle-
ment with the mortgagor, followed
by notioe to treat to the Bwtgagee,
Coakt T. Lmim Oowd^ OmneU,
(1911) 1 Oh. 604 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 425.

(i) AUtm V. Eattern Coantiei

Railway Co., 1 Jur. N. 8. 1009;
Carter \. Great Eatttrn Bailwag Co.,
9 Jur. N. 8. 618.

(i) Doe KeHh ^oriUUre
BaUwag Co., 16 Q. B. 20
L. J. Q. B. 249 : 83 E. E. 577 ;
Due d. Hudmit v. Letdt anff Bnid-
ford Railway, 16 Q. B. 796 ; 20
L. J. Q. B. 486 ; Kmpp v. London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway Co., 2
H. & C. 212 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 236.

(I) Doe y. Ni^h atafordekire
Bailtvag Co., 16 a B. S26 ; 20 L. J.
Q. B. 349; 83 B. B. S77 ; Tiverton
and North Devon Railivay v. Loose-
more, 9 A. C. 405; 63 L. J. Ch.
812.

136

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPASS.

0<"»^- of the provisions of the section (ni). The section applies,
although the landowner has only a leasehold interest (n), and
holds the property in question under different demises (o) ;
but the option of tho lessee does not affect the owner of the
fee (//). An owner wiio has l)een served with notice by a
compuny to t«ive jwrtof his premises niuy, under the section,
refuse to sell less than the whole thereof : but he cannot by
reason of such notice require that the whole be taken. The
company may, on hia refusal to sell less than the whole,
abandon their notice, and refuse to take any part (q). If
the counter notice comprises any land which the company is
not bound to take, the company may disregard it (r). The
acceptance by the solicitor of a company of a coimter notice
to take land which the company cannot be compelled to take,
is not binding on the company (s). The giving a counter
notice under the sectiu.. creates an equity against the land-
owner, whether the original notice be Talid or not. In sudi
a case the Court will not in general interfere by injunction,
even where the company serves a new notice after its com-
pulsory powers have expired ; except upon terms putting the
landowner to sell and convey the property which he has, by
his counter notice, offered to sell (t).
• Hou«e. ' The word " house " in the section means all that would pass

under the grant of a house in a conveyance, and will include

(m) 8t. Thcmat'i HoopUul y.
Charing Crott Railwag Co., IJ. ft
H. 400; SOL. J. Ch. 396.

(>() riiHini/ y. Lniidoti, Clmlham,
ami horer Hailnny Cii., .'i D. J. &
S. im : .» Ti. .1. Ch. 505.

(o) Mar<ireijDr v. Mctrnj^ilnii
Raihraii >'„., H I.. T. ;{o4 : ,S->(/e«-
berg v. Mttropolitan Ditlri't Jtail-
wai/, 32 W. B. 654.

(p ) 3 De G. J. & S. p. 667 ; 33
L. J. Ch. p. 606.

(9) Hey. V. f.oiiihiii ami Sniitli
WetttTH llnilirini Co., 12 Q. 15. 775 ;
17 L. 3.0,. B. ;}26; 76 K. K. -127 ;
King y. Wyrfmbe Railway Co., 2H
Bear. 104; 29 L. J.Ch. 462; 126

B. B. 45 ; rAomfwon t. ToUtnham
and ForulgaU Railway Co., 67 L. T.
416 ; Ashton Vale Iron Co, y. Mayor
of Bristol, (1901) 1 Ch. 891 ; 70
L. J. Ch. 230 ; iVtid y. Wvolunch
Borough Council, (1910) 1 dl. 35;
79 L. J. t'h. 125.

(r) /.ootenutre v. Tivtrlon and
North Dnon Railway Co., 22 0. D.
35 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 570 ; 9 A. C. 607 ;
53 L. J. Ch. p. 826.

(») Treiidwtll y. London and South
V.'ealeni Ruilirai/ l't:,5i L. J. Ch.
565: (1884) \V. N. 233.

(<) I'itichiii V. LonrJoH itnd Black-
Railumj Co., 5 De O. M. & G.
851.865; 24 L. J. Ch. 417.

LANDS CLAUSES ACT.

197

the curtilage and garden, and all that is necessary to the CW». Y.
enjoyment the house (u). A house is not the less a house
beeanse it is , pablic-house or an inn ; nor is it the less a
hous'. because it compriaea or ia used tm tiie purpose of a ahop,
or because it comprises or is used for the purpose of a work-
shop or storehouse (j;). The word, however, includes only
what ia neoesaary tor the ctmrenient use and oecnpation of
thp house, and not also what is subsidiary to, or necessary
for, the convenience of the occupant of the house (y).

What is a " manufactory " within the meaning of the section " Manufactory."
is in each case a question of fact. The word haa been inserted
in the section to provide for the case of a manufacture being
carried on in premises where there is no house or buildings,
bat there ia a manafaotory in the sense of ita being appropriate
for the carrying on of what may be called a manufacture (z).
A . jfactory may be a house or a building, or may be
something more ; it may be more than one house or more
than one building (a), or it may consist of neither houae nor
building, but only of land used for a purpose of manafac-
taring (b).

Under sect. 114, if a mortgagee ia required to accept pay- SMtioa lu.

ment of his mortgage money at c time earlier than the time
limited by the mortgage deed, he is entitled to compensa-
tion in respect of the loas to Y ■ "A by him by reason of

(u) Orotvenor v. Hampstead June- ramimyi Co., 9 0. D. 432,

iiiin Raihmy Co., 1 De O. & J. iH,, ues, L.J.

454 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 731 ; 1 18 B. R. 165 ; > Sittk v. Midlmtd BaUwag Co.,

St. Thnn»a$'$ Hotpital v. Charing 1 Cb. 276; AUhutu r. Eating and

Oro$$ SttUwag Cb., 1 J. ft H. 400, 8oM Harrow tUriltoag, 78 L. T. MA.

404 : Kingr. Wjfeomht Raitwag Co., (() Hichard$ r. Swamta /mprgve-

28 Beav. 104; 29 L. J. Ch. 462; ment and Tramtoagt Co., 9 C. D.

1 20 B. R. 4« ; Salkr v. Metroimlitan pp. 434, 4a7.

Railway Co., 9 Eq. 432 ; 39 L. J. {«) See Hrook v. Manchester,

Ch. 567 ; Barnes v. Simthiea Hail- Sheffield, and I.incolntliire Itailway

iray Co., 27 U. D. 636 ; Kerford v. Co., (1893) 2 Ch. 571 ; 64 L. J. Ch.

Seacombe, Hoylake, etc., Itailioay Co., 890.

67 L. J. Ch. 270 ; Low v. Stainei (b) Richards Swantta Improvt'

JiiMenmr CommlMw, 16 T. Ij. B. 184. ment and Tramteag Co., tupra.

See Rtgent't Canal and Docks Co. v. Aa to meaning ot " other building "

London County Cnuncil, (1912) 1 in Sect. 92, see Aeyenft Cuna{ Co. v.

Ch. 689, 690 ; 81 L. J. Ch., p. 381. London County Council, (1918) 1 Ch.

(z) Richards v. Swansea Improve- 683 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 377.

128

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPA8S.

Section! 181 U
122.

Tenancy at will,
anil from year

Section 123.
Term for com
pnliot; par-

his mortgage money being prematurely paid off. Where a
company had taken possession without providing for such com-
pensation an injanction was granted (c) .
I Where the occupier of lands is a tenant at will, or from
year to year, his interest is to bo assessed summarily before
two magistrates, and u(>on jmynient of the amount he must
deliver up possession (d). If any lessee, on being required to
do so, does not produce his lease or grant, or give the best
evidence thereof, he may be treated as a tenant from year to
year, and be dealt with accordingly (e).

Where an application is made to justices under sect. 121 to
determine the compensation to be paid to a person claiming
to bo interested as yearly tenant, the justices have no jurisdic-
tion to inquire into the title of the claimant to his allAged
interest ; but they are bound to inquire whether the claimant
has been required to give up possession before the expiration of
his term or interest, as it is a c(mditi(m precedent to the right
to compensation that the clainnnt should hare been ao
required (/).

Section 121 does not apply to a person who produces a lease
which, though void at law, is equivalent in equity to a lease
for a greater interest than a yearly tenancy (g).

Unless otherwise provided for in the special Act, the powers
for the compulsory purchase or taking of lands are not to be
exercised after the expiration of three years from the passing
of the special Act (/i).

A railway company, after the completion of their railway,
can, under their general statutory powers, purchase land

(c) Banken r. Satl and Wtrt India
DocJt Co., 12 Bear. 298; 19L.J.Ch.
163; 85B. B. 95.

(i) Section 121. See Reg.Y. Great
Nvrthern RaihiHiy <'„., 2 Q. 11. D.
151 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; <ij<r v.
MttroiKihtiin Hoard of M'vrlit, 36
L. T. N. S. 277 ; ,1876) W.N. 306 ;
11877) W. N. 41.

(<) Section 122.

(/) Ortat Ninihem and Vily
BaVw^s Co. T. TUlett, (1902) 1

K. B.874 : 71 L. J. K.B.626.

{g) Sweetma* v. Mttropob'km
Railway Co., 1 H. ft M. 643.

(A) Section 123. See Sparrow y.
Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhamp-
ton Railway Co., 9 Ha. 444 ; 2 l)e O.
M. & G. 994; 21 L. J. Ch. 731 ;
96 R. B. 21 ; Seymour v. Lomim
and South Wettern RaUway Co., 33
L. T. 380; QMmith'* Co. v.
Wm MOnfoltkM Railway, (1904)
1 K B. 1 ; 73 Ii- J. K. B. 931.

LANDS 0LAC8BB ACT.

1S9

within the limits of deviation of their deposited plans which is o>»>. V.
reasonably oeceaaarf tot or incident to the maintenance of
tueirllne(0.

If the notice to take lands has been given within the period N 'tice Mrrci
prescribed l.y the section, it is immuterial that the purchase n^X^rita"""
has not been completed before the time limited by the section.
The landowner or the e(»npBny may take the proper steps to
ascertain the price notwithstanding that the prescribed jjoriod
has gone by (k). So, also, if a company give notic»> to take
'and and enter on the land after taking the steps required by
sect. 85 before the expiration of the period prescribed for
the exercise of the poweri? of coinpulsoi < purchuHP, they may
continue to hold the land after the expiration of that period(2).
Where there has been a lawful entry under sect. 85, the pro-
moters of a company may use the land though the time for the
exercise of the powers given by the Act has elapsed. There is
nothing in the Lands Clauses Acts which engrafts on the
absolute power of entry on giving security for the value of
the land given by sect. 85, a qualification that possession
must be taken not only within the time prescribed by the
special Act, but also so long before its expiration that the
works may be made on the land within the time named in the
special Act (m). Where a company have before the expira-
tion of the time prescribed by their Act, lawfully acquired
the right to use the land for the purpose of making their
railway, they can construct it under their common law powers
notwithstanding the expiration of the period fixed by their
Act (n).

(0 Tkompmm r. Biekmm, (1907) L. J. Q, B. 249 ; 83 H. R. 577 ;

I Ch. MO ; 76 L. J. Ch. 254. Titerton and Nm-th Peron Ilaila oy

(i) Rrg. v. Birwimiham and Co. v. Looteniore, supra.
Oxford Junction Rnihiay Co., 16 (m) Tivtrton and North Devon
U. li. 034; 19 L. J. Q. 1$. !53; 81 /laUwaff Co. v. Looaemore, 9 A. C.
li. h. "Hi; Yafah/frra Iron Co. v. 480; 83 L. J. Ch. P12; Midland
Sfath and Ilreeon Utiiliiay Co., \' Railimy Co. ▼. Ortat Wtttem
Kq. 149; 43 L. J. Ch. 476; sad flatfuwy Cb., (1908) 2 Ch. 439, 644 ;
see Tiverltm and North Devon Bail- 77 L. J. Ch. 820 ; ( 1909) A. C. 445 |
tt-ay Co. T, Loomnorr, 9 A. C, 78 L. J. Ch. 686.
p. 493 ; 53 L. J. Ch., p. 818. („) Midlan.1 Bailiiay Co v, Ortat

{I) l')e V. yorth Htaffordthire Wntem Baikeag Cfe, «MBra.
Ruilumy Co., 16 Q. B. 626; 20

I

1«0 INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T TREBPASS.

Cfcf. T. A com|)any which has given notice to troat within the pre-
scribed period and has taken the step* required by sect. 86,
may enter after the time for tiie exercise of com|MlBory powers
has expired. " The power of entry is a power necessary for
thp completion of tho purchase, but is not itself one of ths
poweru of compuUory purchase (o).
UMatMiy Mere delay on the part of the promoters after ssrriee of
notice to treat doeH not raise any equity, because the land-
owner has u remedy by mamiamua, compelling the promoters
to proceed (p). But if notice to treat be given by a company
immedi ;ely befoie the expiration of their compulsory powers,
and there is great delay in completing the purchase, and the
conduct of the promoters is such as to lead the landowner into
the belief that the undertaking has been abandoned, an injnne-
tion may be ohtiiined to {nreTent the company proceeding with
the purchase {q).

Sestiim 124. By sect. 134 provision is made for the purchase by pro-

Jj'J^JJj'*'^ meters of companies of interests in lands, the pnr«base of

which has been omitted by mistake (r).
8 fc 9Tiet.c. 18, By sect. 128 the right of pre-emption of superfluous lanf's,

s. 128

SaiKriiudin ▼b'c'* havo been taken by the promoters of an undertaking,
laadi. is given in the first place to the person entitled to the land

from which the same have been originally severed, and in the
next place to the person whose lands immediately adjoin saeh
superfluous lands. The right of pie-empti<m extends to 1«

(o) Mnrqitii of SnlMtiry v. Great Xealli nml Drtcon Raihmy Co., 17

Northtrn Railway To., 17 Q. B. H40, Kii. \V1 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 476 ; Tivtr-

8i;5; 21 L. J. Q. li. 185 ; 85 E. H. Ion and Xorlh Devon Railway Co. r.

691 ; nrertoH and North Dtitm Loonnmre, 9 A. C. 460; A3 L. J.

BaUtettif Co. r. Lootmon, 9 A. C. Ch. 812.

480 ; 53 L. J. Cb. 812. (r) 8m Mmrq-U of Salithfirg r.

{/>) R'lj. V. Birmingham and Ortat Northern Hai'w^y Co., bC.'i.

Orjhril Jiimtion Railira;/ Co., 15 N. S. 174; 28 J. 0. P. 40; Jollif

Q. B. 034 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 453; v. U'imhl ilvn ami Dorhimj [Railway

Pimhiii V. l.o,„lo)i and litarhraU Co., I B. 4 S. S21 ; 31 L. J. Q. B.

Railii ay Co., i l)e G. M. G. 864 ; 95; 124 R. R. 75!» ; Stretton v.

24 L. J. Cli. 417; 104 B. R. Grtat Wettem and Br.ntfn d Rail-

810. leoy Co., 5 Ch. 741 ; 40 L. J. Ch.

{q) Htdgu T. MebropolikM B>iU- M; CardntM MMkmd Bttiluvf

i'Hxy Co., 28 Bwv. 108; 126 B. B. C«, (1904) 31 T. L. B. 23.
48. But see YMyftn Iron Co. v.

UND8 CLAUSES ACT.

Itl

for ye»r8 of such adjoining lands ; and m iojonetioa wiU CU^T.
bo granted to enforce the right («).

When the onderteking is a railway emnpttny, the special BpmW Ad
Act UHually enacts that it shall be lawful for tlu promotars of ^tS^^'t?
the undertaking to niuko and maintain the railway and works " '■"•v-
in the line and upon the land delineated in the plans and
described in the bot^ <4 nfwtnce, and to enter aptm and take,
and use such of the laid land as shall be neeessary for sueb
purpose.

Plans deposited in compliance with the standing v - iers prior Pi»n.

to tho introduction of a hill into Pui liament do not form any ',"i,h?,!ld'i!5
part of the Act, except in so far us they may have been
incorporated wif'jin its provisionn ; nor can they be otherwise
referred to for the construction of the Act (t). Adherents to
the deposited plans is not required by the Act (m.).

The plans are only binding to the extent of determining the
datum line and the line of railway measured with reference
to that datum line, but not with reference to the surface
levels, unless the Act incorporates them within its provi-
sion («). The particular works intended to be made need not
appear on the dcpDsited plan. It is enough that the land
required shall be within the limits of deviation (>j).

lly the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act (8 k 9 Vict. iuiu-.y,,cu»«f
c. a)), ss. 11—16, a railway eompany may deviate a hundred
yards from the datum line. The expressitm " deriatitm " ia to il^SkL

(«) CoMHtry T. London, Brighton,
etc., Railwuy Co., 6 Kq. 104 ; 37
li. J. Ch. 90.

(1) Sorth Britith BaHiitii/ Co. v.
T. dd, 12 CI. cS; Fin. ^32; 69 R. R.
180 ; ISeardmfr v. f.onditi and
yorth Western Bailiviiji Co., 1 Mac.
& O. 112; 1 U. & Iw. 161; 18
L. J. 84B.B.27.

(m) Broiihaw v. Srajf Crtan
nUtrict Vnauril, ( 1 906) 1 1. R. 870—
574; (l»o;) I I. R. 132.

(/■) North British Bailii'ay Co. v.
'Ml, 12 CI. & Fin. 722 ; 69 R. R.
180 ; H are v. Btgeat's Caual Co., 3
D*0.*J.913; 3SL. J.Oh. 1«3;

121 R. R. 80; Att.-a,n. v. Ormt
Eastern Railuay ('..., 7 Ch. 482 ;
41 L. J. Ch. 503; L. R. 6 H. L.
367 ; Edinburgh, rtc.. Tramway* Co.
V. lllack, L. R. 2 11. L. So. 339.

[y] H eld V. SoiUh Ea*Ur» BaO-
tvy Co., 33 L. J. Oi. 14S : 8 L. T.
N. S. 13. S««at to the ractiiicatioii
of niitidw* in the plana and books
of reference, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 7 ;
Taylor v. Cltmtmi, 2 Q. B. 978 ; 11
CI. & Fin. 610; 11 L. J. Ex.447;
65 B. B. 273; Kemp v. Il>»t A'nd
of London and Crystal Palace Rail-
««y ''o., 1 K. 4 J. 681 ; 103 E. B.

m.

9—9

182

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

Ch»p. V.

DcTiation in
respect of a
tunnel or
Tiadnct.

8 k S rict e. SO,
1. IS.

26 & 27 Vict,
e. 92, a. 4.

Notice of
dtrialion mast
bagiTtn.

be taken with reference to the line of railway only: that is,
the lino of railway actually laid down shall not deviate more
than a hundred yards from the line delineated in the Parlia-
mentary plans, the medium filum of each being the com-
mencement and termination in measuring the hundred
yards (z).

When a viaduct or tunnel was marked on the p'ans deposited
as intended to be made, no deviation could, under the Railways
Clauses Consolidation Act (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 13, be made
except with the consent of the landowner. It was necessary
that the work, if made, should be n\adc accordingly («). But
under 26 k 27 Vict. c. 92, s. 4, a railway company in the
construction of the line may deviate from the line or level of
any arch, tunnel, or viaduct described on the deposited plans
or sections, so as the deviation be made within the limits of
deviation shown on the plans, and so as the nature of the work
described be not altered ; and may also, with the consent of the
Hoard of Trade, substitute any engineering work not shown on
the deposited plan or sections for an arch, tunnel, or viaduct,
as shown thereon.

The promoters of a company must give notice of their inten-
tion to exercise their powers of deviation ; and the owner
of any lands prejudicially affected may apply to the Board of
Trade to decide whether the proposed deviation is propar to
be made (h).

Ch. 490, and as to the im-
portance of the deposited plans
for the protection of owners, see
TFare v. Stgrne* Canal Cb., 3 De O.
ft J. 223; 2S L. J. Ch. 103; 121
B. R. 80; Herron v. Rathmina
Imjimement Commisficntrf, (1892)
A. ( '. 498, 513 ; AV.-Hen. v. FrimUy
ami Far nhorovgh Distri' t IlVi^fr Co.,
(1908), 1 Ch. p. 732 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 445.

(<i) Littlev. Xetrjiorl and Herr/cril
JtaUway Co., 12 C. B. 702; 22
L. J. C. P. 39 ; AH..atn. v. Ttwkn.
bury and Mali-em Sailwap Ch., 1
De a. J. ft S. 423 ; 32 L. J. Oi. 482.
(») S ft 9 Tiot e. 90, ■. IS. 8m

(z) Doty. Briitol and Exeter Ilail-
ttxtti Co , 6 M. 4 W. 320 ; 9 L. J.
(K 8.) Q. B. 232 ; 68 B. B. 632;
Doe V. North Slafordthire Itaawai/
Co., 16 Q. n. 526 ; 20 L. J. Q. B.
249; 83 R. R. 577; Bowling v.
Potih/fMl, etc, Itoibcay Co., 18 Eq.
714 ; 43 T,. J. Ch. 761. See Finck
T. London and South ]\'e»lern Jinil-
way Co., 44 C. D. 330 ; 69 L. J. Ch.
4S8; lyiiheroY.ToUenham Railway
Co., (1891) 3 Ch. 278; and see
Herron v. Rathmivte Im/nrvment
(1892) A. C. 498;
Cardiff Jliiilway V. 'Jaff VaU Rail-
way, (1906) 2 Ch. 289 ; 74 L. J.

RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLmATION ACT.

188

Landowners who wish to prevent the promoters of a rail- chap. V.
wuy company from using the powers of deviation reserved to

them under 8 4 9 Vict. c. 20, as. 11—15, should have uppro-
priate clauses inserted in the special Act (c). If there be
nothing in the special Act, or the matter in dispute having
been referred to arbitration, there be nothing in the reference
to arbitration, or in the award consequent thereon, to prevent
them from doing so, a company may exercise the powers of
deviation us they tJiink best within those limits (d).

A landowner is not entitled to an injunction to restrain a Party who m*I»
railway company from proceeding with tlieir works, although e°,^,^'',*'"rom
they are deviating to a greater extent than is authorised by <ieviuiiun wust
8 fe 9 Vict. c. 20, 88. 11 — 15, unless he can show that he is iajarad.
substantially injured by the deviation (e).

Land which is necessary for the erection of stations and UnJ neewaary
other conv eniences for the proper working of the railway, or may bTukenr
for the purpose of constructing the works authorised by 8 & 9 [|l°"f^i^^°("'*
Vict. c. 20, s. 16, may be taken, though it is beyond the limits Je»i»tioii.
of deviation (,/), provided such land be scheduled in the Act
and included in the plans and books of reference (g).

On the other hand, a company may be restrained from Undmaynotb*
taking land n(^requured for the purpose of raabling its works ^« proi«"pur"

paM «l tht Act,

Prarce y. If jfcomie XaUiei^ Co., 1 8add v. Muldon, Braintvrt, ami altkoagh withia

Drew. 244 ; 17 Jur. 6flO ; 94 B. R. Withnn /tailii a,/ f "o. . 6 Excli. 143 ; ^tiHj?^

635. 20 L. J. Ex. 102 ; 8ti B. B. 199. *

('•) Kton I'ollnje V. Ureal Wtttern See W'timl v. t'-iitom and Leathtrhtad

Jluiliray Co., 1 Ba. Ca. 2()0. I!ailira;/ Co., S C. B. N. S. ".'U ; 30

{(/) II ax/ V. North Stuffordshirt L. J. C. P. 83; 125 B. B. 863;

Ilailway Co., 1 Mac. & O. 278, 284; and see LttvUand Solomey. Charing

Selby y. Colne Vallty and HaMead Crou, Entton, tte., Bailway, (1906)

Jiailway Co., 10 W. E. 661. 1 Ch. 608, Aid ; 76 L. J. On.

(r) Huljfoake v. Shrtvr^ry and 282.
llii mingham Ruiluay Co., 6 Ba. C». (y) Doe v. North Staffordshire

421,427. See iVintle\. Bristol and Kailiniy Co., 16 Q. B. o26; 20

Hoiith ]\'ale» I'liim JIailiray Co., 10 L. J. Q. B. 249; 83 B. B. 577;

\V. B. 210 ; I'iuik V. I.imdon ami Jhirting v. i'ontypool, etc., Jiiiilway

>ii'i(lh U'eslen, liaihr.iy Co., 44 f. I). Co., 18 Eq. 714 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 761 ;

3;i() ; 59 L. J. C'h. 458 ; aud brad- Fiu> k v. London and South n'e$tnrn

Imw V. limy Urban (VMiiei7, (1907) Baihvay Co., 44 0. D. 330 ; 09

1 1. R. p. 167. L. J. Ch. 468 : and we Prvthrrot v.

(/) Vathtr V. Midland ilmftooy TBUmham.tU., amlway Co., (1891)

Co., 2 Ml 439; 17 L. J. Ch. »6; 3 Ck. 278.

184

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

ci^p- V- to be constructed in a proper and convenient manner, even
although such land be within the limits of deviation. Thus a
railway company was restrained from taking a piece of land
for the purpose of innking an embankment and a greater slope
on each side of a cutting, and from claiming more land than
was declared by a referee to be necessary for the purposes of
Ihc Act {h\ So a railway company was re-trained from taking
land for the purpose of excavating materials therefrom to be
used in completing an embankment, though it was within the
limits of deviation (i). So, also, a railway company was re-
strained from taking land for the purpose of altering a road,
so as to be convenience to a neighbouring proprietor, though
the land lay within the limits of deviation (k) ; and where a
railway company had served notice under sect. 32 of the Rail-
ways Clauses Act, 1845, with the intention of taking tem-
porary possession of land and constructing a railroad thereon,
an injunction was granted ({).
Company— when The Court wiU not, it seems, on the ground of public incon-
«ercuing,««r» venience, restrain a railway company keeping within their
ofderUtioii. powers of deviation, ffom deviating from the plan, unless it

can he shown that they are acting capriciously (in.).
8 * 9 Vict. c. 20, By sects. 16 and 19 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation
"■ Act (8 t 9 Vict. c. 20), railway .companies are empowered

to execute certain works in the mode and in the manner therein
mentioned (n). By sect. 16 it is declared that they shall
in the execution of such works do as little damage as can

(A) IVebb T. Mauchesttr and Ijttdt
Raihvay Co., 4 M. & C. 116; 48
B. B. it8. See abo Bimf»im
Sonth Stafcurdthin Wattrua^k* Co.,
4 I>e a. J. ft 8. 679 ; U L. 3. Ch.
380.

(i) EifrHlhlil V. .\lul-Suste.r Itiiil-
way 6 lleO. & J. 2m; 28 I,. J.
Ch. 107; 121 U. R. l'2;t. See also
Jitntiuek v. Norfolk tUinary <'o., 8
De O. M. & G. 714 ; M L. J. Ch.
404; 114 B. B. 297.

{k) Dodd V. SaiMurg unU Ymiil
Bmilway Co., t Oiil. 1«8, 163;

affirmed, 33 L. T. O. S. 311 ; 114
B. R. 389.

(/) Morrit v. T\4ttnham and
Farta Oate JlttUmtf Co., (1892) 2
Ch. 47 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 213.

(/n) AU.-Oin. v. Qrtat If>»tem
Jtailwofi Co., 14 W. R. 726.

(«) .See Itanythi/ v. Midland Hail-
uui/ Co., 3 Ch. 306 ; 37 L. J. Ch.
313; .Att.-Ofii. V. FAji, ttc, Jiailivay
Co., 4 Ch. ISM ; 38 L. J. Ch. 258 ;
Lewu v. Charing Crott, EmUm and
Utmptlmi MMmtf Co., (1906) 1 Ch.
MS; 7AL.J. (%.m

fiAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT.

185

be (o). A railway company may erect buildings over streets chop, v.

in a town for the construction of stations, warehouses, etc.,

or may divert the course of a road or river, if it is necessary

or reasonably convenient for the purposes of the line (/)).

But an act is not necessary within the meaning of the clause

merely because it enables the company to execute their works

more economically (q).

Section 53 of 8 1 9 Vict. c. 20 provides that if the company RuuU.
find it necessary to interfere with any road, either public or
private, so as to make it impossible for or dangerous or
extraordinarily inconvenient to passengers or carriages, or to
the persons entitled to the use thereof, they are first to pro-
vide a suffieirat road in substitution for it (r). This section
applies to a permanent diversion, as well as to a temporary
diversion of a road (s).

By 8 fc 9 Viet. c. 30, s. 76, the owners or occupiers of lands 8 ft » Viet. b. so
adjoining a railway are empowered to lay down branches com - gjj,||^ ^
municating with the railway, and the railway company is railways,
required to make q)enings in the line or sidings for the
branches at places to be approved by the company (t), and
by a recent Act are required to give reasonable facilities for

(o) See WutmiiitUr Corimratiou fVattr Co., (1891) 2 Ch. 409 ; 60

v. LomUm and North Wt^em Sail- L. J. Ch. 69a

wag Ch., (liN»} A. C p. 433 ; 74 (r) F«e Kemp v. /Won <md

L. J. Ch., p. 63.I. Brightm Railu aif <'o., 1 Ea. Cb.

(/i) Att.-(len. y. Eastern (\>untie» o0.j; Alt.-deii. v. (r'reat Saitliern

llailiraii Co., 2 Ra. Ca. 823; I'ligh Rnilimn Co., 4 De O. & S. "o ; «7

V. <lol len I'allei/ Hailii-ay Co., 15 1{. K. 294 ; Att.-Oen.y. London and

C. D. :W(t ; 49 L. J. Ch. 721. iiouth Weitei n Railway Co., 3 De G.

(9) Fenwiek v. East London Rait- Jt S. 439; Att.den. v. Barry Ducka

tvay Cb., 20 Eq. M4 ; 44 L. J. Ch. Railway Co., M C. D. dTd; 66

608 ; T. OoUm VtMtg Bail- L. J. Ch. 1018. A road already

nap Co., U 0. D. 33B ; 4B L. J. wditiag ia not a substituted road

Ch. 721 ; Morris v. ToHmham and within the meaning of the clause ;

Fiire»t (tale Raiitoay Co., (1892) .Ht.-Oen. \. (Ireat yortliern Railii-ay

2 Ch. 47; 61 L. J. Ch. 215; Att. Co., 4 DeO.&S. 75; 87 R. R. 294.

den. V. Metropolitan Railway Co., (») Att.-Uen. v. Harry Docks, etc.,

(I89t) 1 Q. U. 384 , 390 ; 69 L. T. Co., 35 C. D. 673; 56 L. J. Ch.

811 ; Emtlry v. North Eastern Rail- 1018.

way Co., (1886) 1 Ch., p. 434 ; «A W See Woodruff v. Br»-on and

L. J. p. 3M. But see Uar- Merthgr BaUwas Co., 28 C. D.

rwon v. BmOkwurit and FaadUtf 190; M L. J. Ol 620.

136

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

Ch»p. V. the junction of private sidings or private branch lines with
the company's railways (u).
Powenof H k 9 Vict. c. 20, H. 87 (x), railway comixinies areein-

Hb«.'"' powered to enter into contracts with other railway companies

for passing over each other's lines upon the payment of sach
tolls and undi r such restrictions as may be mutually agreed
upon, and to enter into a contract for the division or appor-
tionment of the tolls with the view of carrying out this object.
The section does not authorise an agreement which will
amount in fact to a lease, or to a transfer of the undertaking
to another company (y), or which will have the effect of
enabling one company to carry the whole of the traffic of
another company, under colour of passing over the line of the
other company (z) ; but merely gives to one party a limited
power to run a portion of its traffic over the other line (a).

An agreement between two railway companies, giving one
company the power to pass over the line of the other on
certain specified terms, confers rights v^f a permanent nature,
and is not a mere licence determinable at will. The terms of
the agreement are not toe vague, but will be ' eld to concede a
user consistent with the proper enjoyment of the railway, the
subject-matter of the contract, and with the rights of the
granting party (6).
8 fc » Vict c. 20, Where a railway company refused to allow the plaintiffs to
run engines and carriages over part of their, line under the
powers of sect. 92, the Court would not, at the suit of the
plaintiffs, restrain the company from preventing the exercise
of the right. The ground of the decision was that inasmuch

(it) Bailwayg (Private Sidingg) (z) Simpum v. Denitm, 10 Ha.

Act, 1901 (4 Edw. 7, c. 19). See 61 ; 90 B. B. 376 ; cf. Midland

Oittnwodil V. Cht*hirt Lint* Com- Builway Co. v. Oreo* Wmtem Rail-

vnilire. (1909) 13 Ba. Ca. 189. teoy Co.. 8Ch. 841 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 438.

(.'■) Amended \>y 26 ft 27 Viet («) Wuirk v. ISirk-rnhead Raihmy

0. !)-', S3. •J2 29. Co., 5 De. G. & S. 862; 90 B. B.

(//) (Irait \nrtlirni Uailiraij Co. HH ; Siinjuon V. IMn%9Qn, 10 Ha.

V. i:<ul,rn roiiiififs lUMivay O.., 9 51 ; 90 E. R. 276.

Iln. ;iO.; ; 21 I;. J. Ch. ; S9 {h) f.hwelly Railiinu, etc., Co. v.

B. B. 4.56 ; cf. Miilland RaUwny Co. Ltmilon and North Wttttrn Rttilway

T. Great llVdem Sailwag Co., S Gi>.,4dL.J.Ch.H8; L. B. 7 H.L.

Ch. 841; 43 1^ J. 0)1.488. UO.

92.

RAILWAYS CLAUSES' CONSOLTOATION ACT.

187

as tho plaintiffs could not run over the lines unless the points cb«p. V.
and signals on the line were properly worked by the railway

company, the Court could not grant relief, as it does not order
the performunco of a continuous act like working signals, the
doing of which requires continaous attention, and cannot be
scon to by the Court (c).

Where a railway company is empowered by its Act to form Junciion*.
a junction with another line of railway, the latte^- company
will be restrained from interfering with the former company
in making junction (if). But in making the junction a
company may not take the iand or interfere with the works of
tho company or person to whom the other railway belongs, or
any of the works thereof, further than is necessary for making
the junction (e).

The fact that a particular penalty is imposed by statute (/) Injunction to
in the event of engines employed on a railway being so con- Mtaiae«r~*
structed as not to consinnc their own smoke, does not, it
seems, preclude a person from applying for an injunction to
restrain the nuisance (g).

The Court will enforce by injunction the provisions of the Cam»g«» and
115th section of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, that btSifat mi**
no engine or other description of moving power shall be ••"•v-
brought or used upon a railway, onless the same shall have
been approved by the railway company as therein mentioned,
notwithstanding that to enforce such right of inspection would
occasion great inconvenience to the public traffic (h).

(.) l'(,ir,ll Diiffnju Steam Coal 145; and b. 19 of 31 & 32 Vict.

V. Tag Vale J!ailiray Co., 9 Ch. c. 119. See London County Council

331; 43 L. J. Ch. olo ; uud see y . Great Eaitem Railwaf/ Jo., [1909)

Ityau V. MtUutd Toutiue H><tmtiu<er 2 K. B. 312 : 76 L. J. K. B. 490.
Chamber! Aitneiiaicn, (1883) 1 C9i. (g) Smith Midland Railway,

116, 128; 62 L. J. Ch. 282, 246; etc., Co., 25 W. R. 861; (1877)

Oreat Central Railwaii Co. v. MU- W. N. 200. See also Andrewt v.

laml Railwaii Co. (1912) 1 Ch. p. Great Eaitern Railway Co., (1866)

217 : HI L. J. I'h. J). 127. 2 T. L. R. 664; Cull and Roolo' v.

('/) >ireat Xortlierii Itailivoy Co. Great Kattern Itiiilway Co., (1900)

V. Kttst and West India Dofks, etc., 64 J. P. 216, and ante, pp. 8 and 9.
Rail mil/ Co., 7 Ha. Ca. 336. {h) Midland Raduny Co. t. .4111-

(r) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 92, b. 11; htrgate, Hettiagham, efe., MaUtiiay

and tee fi» * 60 Tiet. e. 48, a. 83. Cb., 10 Ha. 3W ; 90 B. B. 896.

(/) S * » Yiet e SO. m. 114,

188

f y- Tht' Court will also enforce by injunction the provisions of
H & 9 Vict. e.20, the 117th section of the Railways ClansM Gonsolida^ Act,
that no carriage belonging to another company having the
right to run over the line, shall pass along or be upon the
railway unless it he at all tiuMB, so long as it shall be used
or shall remuin on the railway, of the construction and in the
condition which the regulations of the company for the time
being shall require (i).
Clause prohibit- Where the special Act prohibits a company from entering

iiig a compaay . . ■ i . . . . ■ i_ ■

fram ukiug land upon Or tiiKiiit^ lunns Without the consent of the owner, his
wiiboat coii«ei.t. ggjjgpjj^ jj^yg^ obtained before the lands are taken. A

rival company may, under the provisions of the clause, refuse

to allow their railway to Le crossed, although the effect may
be to prevent the undertaking from being carried into

execution (fc).

Owner a rigiito After a Company hare taken lands under their ctmipulsory
taken 'by'^"'" '' powers and paid the money, the owner of the land cannot
ci>mp»Bj. restrain them in the mode of using the land for the purposes
of the company (I) . Nor can a nmn who has sold bis land to a
company and given them possession, have an interlocufory in-
junction to restrain the c(Hnpany from continuing in posses-
sion of the land in default of payment of the purchase money.
His proper remedy is to enforce his lien or to hare a receiver
appointed (w). But a vendor of land to a railway company is
entitled to the same lien on the land for the unpaid purchase
money, and the same remedies for enforcing it, as an ordinary
vendor (it). Where, therefore, the unpaid vendor of land
taken by a railway company has recovered judgment in ait
action against the company .to enforce his lien, the Court
will on default in payment of the purchase money, <iiere being

(t) See iJAymney Satiway Co. y.
Taff Vale Uailtviy Co., 29 Beav.
163, 160 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 482.

(A) Clurmir /lailwai/ f'o. v. Great
Xoi th of F.nglanil, etc., Rail'iay ('o.,
4 Q. B. 46 ; Oray v. LiitrjoiJ and
It«rv i;,uhrn>/ Co., 9 Beav. 35»1.

(/) Kaat and ff'rit Intlia Doclet,
etc., Bailway Co. v. Dawn, 11 Ha.

363.

(m) PM T. Ni^tkamfitm, etc..
Hallway Co., 2 Ch. 100 ; .36 L. J.
Ch. 319; Munnt v. hie of Wight
liaila-ay Co., 6 Ch. 418; 39 L. J.
Ch. 522 ; Latirm ry. A ylethnry, <fe.,
RaH-'^y f Of. P. .-J^S.

(n) Wing v. 7'vttenham, etc., Jiail-
woy Cb.. 3 Ch. 740 i 37 L. J. Ck. 064.

RAILWAYS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 189

evidence that the knd is unsaleable, grant an injunction to citT- V-
rMtrain tiie emnpmy from miming tosins omr the nihrty

and continuinf in possession of the land (o).

Where a railway company had paid part of the purchase
money and had taken pOBsession, but retained Ihe balance
until a good title could be shown, the Court held tiiat they
had purchased the right of possession and would not restrain
the company from continuing in possession of the land until
paymoit of the balancr into Coort (p).

Afari from any facilities granted by the Railway Commis-
sionws, a railway compuiy hare the right of excluding from
their stations all persons except those using or desirous of
using the railway, and may impose upcm the rest of the public
any terms they think proper as the condition of admittance.
Accordingly, i railway company having a hotel of their own
within the limits of the station may qualify their permissicHi
to other hotel proprietors and their servants to have froe
access to the platform by the condition that such servants
when attending at the platform shall not wear a distinctive
badge or livery (g).

The Commisbioners of Sewers have power under Michael 67 Qm. III.
Angelo Taylor's Act (r) for the purpose of widening, altering, *• *»**•••■*'.
and improving streets and public places in the Metropolis, to
take houses and lands or any part thereof which shall be
adjudged by them to be necessary for carrying out the pur-
poses of the sectitm. They have no power to take houses or
lands simply for the purpose of altering the levels, and in
order to take lands for the purpose of widening or altering a
street there must be a bond fide belief that the widening or
altering of the street is wanted for the improvement of the

(o) Allgood V. Merryhmt, etc., of tlw OooUBUcioners of Sewew

Railway Co., 33 C. D. 871 ; 55 have been transferred to the Com-

I.. J. Ch. 743. nion Council of the City of London

( p ) Cappt V. Norwich and SpaW- by 60 & 61 Vict. c. cxxxiii. See

ing Railway Co., 9 Jur. N. 8. 635. alao sect 90 of the Metropolis

(7) Perth Oenrral Statiim Com- Uanagement Act, 18U, and Mot 73

mittee v. Ro$$, (IM?) A. 0. 47* ; M e( tto Hstropolu MuMgemsnt Act,

L. J. P. C. 81. ISsa, aad sects. 6 and 213 of the

(r) 67 Qto. III. 0. xzix., ■. 80. London BnMng Act, 1894 (57 ft

The powen, dntiM^ and IkUlitiM M Viet 0. aesiiL).

140

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

- street within the meaning of ti»e section. An adjudication

by them that houses or lands are necessary for carrying out

the i)urjX)8es of the section must, in order to be final and con-
ciusivo, be an honest and bond fide adjudication. It must also
be an adjudication which bears aime relation to reasm. If
they come reasonably to the conclusion that the whole of a
house or piece of land is required for enabling them to carry
out improvements in respect of wiiich they can take land
compulsorily, their adjudication will be upheld. But they
hiivc no power to adjudicate that the jmsscssion of the whole
of n '^ouse or i)iece of land is necessary for tjie purpose of
imptuvements where they only intend to use a part of it for
that puiiKJse, thougli if they made such adjudication in the
bond fide belief that they would require the whole for the
improvements, the correctness of the adjudication could not
be questioned («).

Notice to treat. A njtico to treat under Michael Angelo's Act does not in
substance differ from a notice to treat under the Lands Clauses
Act ; in either case the notice defines the land to be taken, and
an owner must either treat the notice us good or repudiate it as
a whole ; he cannot accept it in part. If the owner repudiates
it in part, the local authority are entitled to withdraw their
notice altogether and need not make compensation for any
expense incurred by the owner in consequence of the service
of their notice to treat (<).
When an owner Where a landowner desires to retain part of a bouse, the
ofhuhomr" loi^fi' authority will be restrained from actmg on a notice to
treat for the whole, unless the remaining part will be useless
as a house (u) . Whether the part which is left will be available

(») Oard V. Commiuioners of (t) Il'iVrf v. Woolwich Borvugk

Stwen, 28 C. D. 486; S4 L. J. Ck. Council, (1910} 1 Ch. 38; 79 L. J.

688; XyncA v. CvmmiMimtn Ch. 126.

8rwer$, 32 C. D. 72 ; 5d L. J. Ch. (u) Tenlim t. Valry of St. Mary

409 ; Pncod v. WeHmintter Corporn- Abbotta, 30 C. D. 642 ; 35 I.. J. Ch.

tioii, (T!H)5) 2 Ch. p. 487 ; 74 L. J. 23 ; Dmn.anv. Weslmiimter Uorpora-

Ch. (iCS ; iMnman v. ]f'tatminater Hon, (190B) 1 Ch. p. 478 ; 75 L. J.

Cur/iwoid*, 11900) 1 Ch. p. 476 ; 75 Ch. 272; see Daviet v. City of

X.. .T. f'h. 272 ; IhiiHt* v. <Hiy of Limtlon Corporation, (1913) 1 Ch.

Lon</<jn Corporation, (1913) I Ch. p. 424 ; 83 L. J. Ch. p. 290.
p. 421 ; 82 L. J. Ch. p. 289.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TBESPASS.

141

88 a house or not, is a question of fact to be determined in Oht^. T.
each case, but the circumstance that the part left will require
some reconstruction n not omclnsire widenee that it will

not be a house (r). On the other hand, a local authority will Whenloe»l

be restrained from proceeding with a notice to treat to take

part of a house, where the removal of such part will sub- »^'"«p««.

stantially injure the enjoyment of the house in the manner

in which it was formwly enjoyed (x).

Section 149 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which vests Ve.ti..Bof,treeM
certain streets in an urban authority does not vest in the local i"{S^t,.
authority the soil bolow the siiifuco of the street, or the air
al)ove the surface, beyond what is reasonably necessary for
the control, protectim, and maintenance of the street as a
highway (y) ; and the law is tho same in the cato of streets
vested in a local authority under sect. 96 of the Metropolis
Management Act (z), and in the case of main roads vested
in a county council by sect. 11 of the Local Government
Act, 1888 (a), and in the case of roads constructed by the
Road Board under 9 Edw. 7, c. 47 (b). Accordingly, where
an urban authority was empowered by Act to erect on land
belonging to them, or under their control, lavatories for the

((■) Ihiimnn v. Wtstminster Cor- Ch. 286.

poratinn. (liKMi) 1 (^h. 4()4 ; 7-^ L. J. (i/) Maijirr of Tunbridge WtlU v.

Ch. 27-2; /Mi,/><i v. Cit;/ I.<m-l,m liairtl, (1896) A. C. 434 ; 6fi L. J.

Coi-IKirntion, (litl.l) 1 Ch. 425; 82 Q. B. 461 ; M'andtwortk Board of

I,. J. Ch. p. 29<). Wark$ V. United Tdtphone Co., 18

(x) Qordon v. Vu*ry o/ 8t. Mary Q. B. D. 904 : S3 L. J. Q. B. 449 ;

A bb,4,. (1894) 2 Q. B. 742 ; 63 L. J. FincUey Electrir Light '.'o. v. Finch-

M. C. li)3; AWt V. London Cor- Urban Cui(nril,{\903) 1 Ch. 4^7 ;

imratlon, (1899) 2 Ch. 169; 68 li. J. 72 L. J. Ch. 297 ; I'olfijs Chnr.ty

Ch. 576 ; Giliboii v. I'addinylon Trit$iee» v. Diulley CorjHiration,

Vfstn,, (1900) 2 Ch. 794; 69 L. J. (1910) 1 K. B. 322, 324 ; 79 L. J.'

Ch. 746; Peacodv. tyeittninttfr Cor- K. B. 410; and tee Andrews v.

ponition, (1905) 2 Ch. p. 488; 74 AlxrtUlery Urbun Council, 2

J. Ch. p. (ifS ; rhom,,$on v. Ch. 406, 40T ; 80 L. J. C*. 724.

llammfrimUh Corporation, (1906) 1 (j) St. Mary'$ Vtitry, Batteriea

Ch. 299 ; 74 Ti. J. Ch. 129 ; /'cntiMn v. Coun'y of London and Bruth

V. HWoiMtfer Pvrp ration, Bii/ira ; hlairic Lighting Co., (1899) I Ch.

Orren v. Hacknry Corporation, 474 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 238.

(1910) 2 Ch. 105; SOL. J. Ch. 16; (.<) See Att.-Oen. r. Barker,

Davie* v. City of London Corpora- (1900) 83 L. 'f. 245.

tion, (IMS) 1 Ch. 416; 83 L. J. (i) See Mot 9(1).

INJUNCTIONS AOAINST TB18PA88.

use of the public, it was held that the local authority had no
power to ezcavate the loil and erect lamtoriee below the sur-
face of the atreet (r). So, also, a Motropolitan Board of
Works was held not to be entitled to maintain an action for an
injunction against the erection of a telephone wire across a
street under their control, as the wire was cr^'oted at a great
height and caused no npprpciahle dangor to the public or to
llie traffic in the street {(/). So, also, an Urban District
Council was held not to bo entitled to prevent electric wires
being oai rird over a street at a height above the area required
for the user of the street (c). So, also, where an electric
lighting comjiany had illegally broken up the surface of a
street within the district of a vestry in the Metropolis and
placed their pipes and wires at a depth of about two feet
below the surface, it was held that the vestry could not main-
tain an action for an injunction to compel the company to
remove their pipes and wires (/). So, also, u local authority
was held not to be entitled to an injunction to restrain a com-
pany from making a tunnel under a road which did not inter-
fere with the use of the road {[)).

Where a local authority, having statutory jxiwers to erect
pillars in or under their streets for the purjwse of working
their tramways, erected a pillar in the pavement and sunk it
in the i)laintiff's subsoil henpath to a depth of six feet, it
was held that the local authority's act was not a * puss,

(.) Mni/ir if Tni.i'riil.jf U'flU v.
Iliih l, {inm) A. I'. J;J4 ; 05 L. J.
Q. IJ. 451 See n'>w sects. > (2)
and 47 of the riil.Uc Health
Amendmvnt Act, l!»i>7, and sect. 44
of the Public Heaii .. vLondon) Act,
18<)1 ; and \V$$lmiiuttr Curi>oratitm
V. Lniiilon and Nirrth Wnttrn llail-
>,■„!/ <:,... (19(») A. C. 4M; 74 L. J.
I'h. (i29.

(//) iVanilKirorth V-mrJ of Workt
V. Vnit d 'lehphntte Co., 13 Q. R D.

, 53 I,. J. d B. 449. See
Ue Klectiic Lighting Act, IWi,
8. 14, an I the PuUic Health Act,
1890,8. 13(1); audsMtbsLoadon

Oveihoii.l \Viic^ Act, l«!)I,c. Ixxvii.

(.) riurl.lni i::,rtrir I.ijlit r„. v.
J-'imhlei/ I'rtmii Diatrit Couti'tt,
(1903) i Ch. 437 ; 7J L. J. Ch. 297.

(/) St.Mary'f Visfry, llnltirsfay.
Cuuiilyof London and Itriuh KIti trie
Lighting Co., (1899) 1 Ch. 474 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 238. See the Electric
Lighting Act, 1X8'.', s. 12 (2 ), 13, and
the Kiocfric Lijjhtiiif; (Claii-es) Act,
189!), ff>. 11—20. Klectric Lighting
Act, 1909, s. 3, and Amliewt v.
AUrtilleri/ I'rbaii Ihatiiit CmncU,
(l«ll) i Ch. 398; 80 L. J. Ch. 724.

(j) I'l-pliirGrixraiionv.MiUuMlU
Dock Co., (1901) M J. P. m

INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T TRESPASS.

148

as it had been done imdw their statutory nowers. and that the ciwp. v.
ereetkm of tbo piliw in and under the parement was not a

taking of the plaintiffs land within the mealing of sect. 18
of the Lands Clauses A- ',, 1845, and that the phiinfiff's
remedy, if any, was to claim compensa ■ m under sect. 68
of that Act, if he could eatabliah that hia property had been
injuriously affected (h).

Under the Metropolis Management Act, 18ft2, 25 k 26 Vict. BaiidiB« Hm.
c. 102, as. 74, 76, the Board of Works, constituted under the
Metroiwlis Management Act, lH-,5, had power to require
buildings and structures to be set back, paying compensn-
lion to the owners; and were also empowered to pull down
houses which interfered with the general line of buildings
in a street. These provisions are repoiiled but in substance
re-enacted by the London Building Act, 1894 (i). Where the
provisions of the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, had not
been complied with by a local authority, the Court grante<l an
injunction restraining them from interfering with an owner's
buildings (k).

Where a local authority had prescribed the line in which a
building, which had been pulled down, should be rebuilt, the
Court restrained the owners from rebuilding otherwise than
in the manner prescribed (I). WTiere a building was erected
in contravention of sect. 3 of the Public Health (Buildings

(A) AW< V. Ncu,port Corporation. 73 L. J. K. B. l(m ; r.o.uh,. Countt,
(1904) a K. B. 8W ; 78 L. J. K. B. Co»mil r. Sr**«tt. ( 1905) 2 K B.
M. „ ... «M; 74 L. J. K. H. 959 ; /.o».lor.

(!) Si ft S8 Vict. e. ecwil., s. 22, Oauntt/ Conncil v. Han'-ork (1907) 2
which provides thai no •• bnilding or K. B. 43 ; 76 L. J. K. B. .526.
•tructnw ihaU without th« consent [h) A,.ckU,„d v. ir.v»„»J?,r /);,.
in writing of the London Coimty tricl Koanl uf WorH, L li 7 Ch
(ouncil be erected beyond the 697; 41 L. J. Ch. 723 ; of. Lm.ion
general bui'-'mg line of buildingB Coimtii Cvuniil v. /Vyor. (1896) 1
in a street." See Lon.loi, Coimly Q. B. 330, 463 ; 6d L.' J. M. C
<'miiicil V. Melmj^olitai, Railtiay Co., 89.

11909)2 K.B.317; 78 L. J. K. B. (I) Xewhavex Local B.anl v
830;8.C.(19n)A.0.1:89L.J.K. ffnthar^ Sc/.ool Board, 30 C D
B.34; andKeaMt.a3. Astowhat 330,365. See Att-G.,,. y. Ha'rh
are Imadings or strnclnre* within (1893) 3 Ch. 36; 62 L. J. Ch. 857*
themeaningof this Act, see London Att.-Oen. v. Parish, (1913) 109 L T
Co^nlg Commit v. IlluminaM Ad- 57 ; 29 T. L. E. 608 (mandatory
pertmmtnt, Co.. (1904) 2 K. R 888 ; injunction to puU down gnmt«I).

IN.H Nt'TIONS A(iAINRT THKHPARS.

t iMlp. V.

Wllltll of ll«W

Mnet*.

Thuiiiei
BuhiakBMit
Act, 1«62.

Thiinies
Ctfiispt viincy
Acu.

in Streets) Act, 1888, the Court, ut the suit of tiio Attorney-
Oenernl (m), granted a mandatory injunction compelUng the
(jpfendaiits to pull down so much of the builtiinR iis itifi in|»o(l
the l)uil(lin(» lino, notwithstnndinR that the .section of the
Act iinitosed ii jienalty for breach of the prohibition, and that
the defendants had already been ocmvicted and fined by a
Coiiit of suniiiiiiiy jurisdiction («)•

Section 157 of the Public Ilettlth Act, 1875, ciuiwwcrs un
urbnn authority to make bye-laws with respect to the width
and construction of new streets, and an injunction will be
pi iinted at the suit of the Attorney (ioneral aguinst an owner
of land constructing or allowing to continue constmoted a
roadway which is not made in accordance with the bye-
laws (()).

The Thames Embankment Act, 1802, '25 k 26 Vict. c. 03,
incorporates the Lands Glauses Act, 1846, with the additional

provision tliat the word "land" shall include easements and
interests in land. The owner of a wharf on the Thames had
a right of free access to the river, and also the right of loading
and unloading his barges at the wharf, but there was no
e;ini|)sbe(! or bard. The barfjes only rested at low water on
the mud of the foicsiiuie. The Court held tiiat the filling
up of the rivpr in front of the wharf was not a taking or
using, for tbi^ p ' > of the uiidc takin'j, any easement i>r
interest, and ref i J restrain the defendants from proceed-
ing with their wo until they had complied with the pro-
visions of sect. 84 01 the Lands Clauses Act (p).

Hy sect. 83 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, which
incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts, the Conservators have
power to dredge the bed of the river for the purpose of im-

(.„} Se.>.V»'Vnv. //"Wiir./, (190;i) Th,i„„>nrt v. Ti'-.tr, (190;5) 1 Ch.
■J Ch. !it \K ; 72 Ti. J. C h.

hi) Alt.-deii. V. Wiinblrdon Hun^r
Eatatr Co., (liH^) 2 Ch. 34 ; 7.1 L. J.
Ch. S93. See Dtvonport v. Tiaer,
(1903) 1 Ch. 759; 72 L. J. Ch. 411.

(o) Att.-Oeii. V. Oibb, (1909 - 2
Ch. 2tij; "S 1.. J. Ch. ftJl. As to
what con!<titute8 laying-out and
leiBiBtrttctiDg • new stiwt, mg

75i) ; 72 I.. J. Ch. -Ill ; and Alt-
(irn. V. n,n-i,i. (1912) 1 Ch. 369 ;
81 L. J. Ch 225.

(yi) yiiirt 'i V. yfrirujioHl'in Board
vf Workt, 33 L. J. Ch. 377. See
Tht Ttmple Pier Co. t. MrtropiMan
Board of Work*, 34 L. J. Ch. 262 ;
cf . Clark T. Sthaol Uoardfat London,
9rh. 124; 43 L. J. Ch. 421.

H5

CIm|>. V.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST I'UESI'ASS.

proving the navigtlioii. The Bection, however, is not iin]>cru-
tin, nd ih» CooMmUon will be r««trai»Mi from exercising

their powers so as to injure the property of other purtit's (q).

Where ui owner'a property ia injuriously affected by the Comvmmnim.
proper ezercise by corporations of their statutory powers, the
remedy of the landowner is to claim compensatim noder the
compensation clauses of the statutes by which the Act is
authorised, and not to proceed by action for an injunction
or damacaa, but iriwre corporations interfere with an owner'e
|»roporty in u manner not iiutiioriscd l)y their statutes, they
will be re8tru...od from so acting, and the owner will not bo
left to bis remedy under the compensation clauses of the
Acts (r).

The account in cases of trespass for the underground work- Area«Bti>
ing of mines will, in the absence of fraud, fie limited toJ^^iiSS'^
minerals gotten within aii years before the bringing of the
action («). Hut the account will be limited to minerals
gotten within six years from the bringing of the action, if the
mineralii hare been ««ken by a concealed and fraudulent tres-
pass, so long 03 the party defrauded remains in ignorance
without any fault or laches of his own (/).

In taking the account in trespass for the underground work-
ing of mines, where the minerals have been taken fraudu-
lently, the wrongdoer will be charged the full value of the

(7) A'(i»( I.umlon Mailivay Co. v.
Tliaiiu) Ciinttrmtors, (1904)
T. L. B. 378. See also tho Thuinea
(.'oiiservawcj- Act, IHlW (5 EJw. 7,
c. cxeviii.), ss. 3 ai J us to con-
struction ol men and dredictng tie
bed.

(r) 8m Impmial (hi Liyht ami
Coke Co. T. Hroadbt , i, 7 II. L. C.
600, C12 ; 29 L. J. Ch. :)-U ;
V. .Wat!oc': Hath L,,ul /A,m/, 14
4. U. l>. 928 ; 52 L. T. TOJ ; Jle'lf„>:l
[Ituke) V. Ikuvtun, L. B. '10 K.i Aai ;
44 h. J. Ch. 549; (/ran./ Junction
t'linai Co. V. S/tuyar, L. E. 6 Ch,
481; 34 L. T. m-. Wigmm r.
Fryer, 36 C. D. 87 ; 56 L. J. Cll.

K.I.

1098; Kirby v. Ilarroyate Sr/ioul
Uuanl, (1890) 1 Ch. 440; Oi
L. J. Ch. 37(i; Bamurd ». Gnat
WaUrn Bailway Co., (1008) 86 L. T.
<B6; Pigjf4t T. MiddleHx Cottnty

Consttf, (19W) 1 Ck. 134, 14A; 77

L. J. Ch. 813.

{») Dmn V. Thu-aite, 21 15eav.

C2.i; 111 R. E. 128: Itawts v,

Haijmll, 23 W. E. 690 ; TrvUer v.

Marlean, 13 V. I). 587; 49 L. J.

Ch. 256; Olyn v. /luwed, (1909)1

Ch. 666 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 391.
(0 Bulli Coal Mining Co. r.

O^xunt, (1899) A. C. 361 ; 68 L. J.

P. 0. 4».

10

146 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS.

ca»p.V. minerals when gotten; without being allowed the expenses
of getting or severing tlu ui, although the expenses of raising
the coal to the pit's mouth will be allowed (tt). But if there
be no suggestion of fraud, the trespasser will be treated as the
purchaser at the pit's mouth, and must pay the market raiue
of the minerals at the pit's mouth, less the actual disburee-
ments (not including any profit or trade allowances) for sever-
ing and bringing them to bank, so as to place the owner in the
same position as if he had himself severed and raised the
minerals (x) .

Dmd««m. If there he evidence of damage to the mine from wrongful

working, an inquiry will be directed as to what should be
allowed to the plaintiff as compensation for such damage (y).
The defendant may be ordered to pay the plaintiff compensa-
tion for tlie damage done by breaking down the barrier
between the mines (z), or for the damage sustained by the
plaintiff in being obliged to leave additional barriers (a). He
may also be charged with a way-leave rent in respect of air
courses and roads through the mine of the plaintiff (ft).

If a man trespass on the mine of another and wrongfully
T\-ork it, and get coal there, but in the course of his working
leave other coal unworked, which by reason of his wrongful
working becomes so diminished in value that he cannot work
it at a profit, the mine owner is entitled to damages for the

(«) Martin y. Porter, 5 M. & W. 40; Trotter v. Maclean, 13 C. 1).

331; 82 B. E. 14oi J'liiUij>l v. 587; 49 I-. J. Ch. 256. See

Uom/ray, 6 Ch. 7"0 ; Llgnti Co. Atliorrr Fluor SjHir Minet Co. v.

V. Brogdtn, 11 Eq. 188; 40 L. J Jacktm, (1911) 2 Ch. 3o6 ; 80 L. J.

Ch. 40; Trotter v. Marltan, 13 Ch. 687.

C. I). 5H7; 4!i L. I. Ch. 25t. , {if) Jeijonv. Vi^)iati,*Hfra; Taylor

T(i'il"r V. Mofijin, C. 1>. 226; ba v. Mottijn, mi<ra.

I J. Ch. 8!i:f ; ami -I P ]\ hUwUnm (2) I.lynvi v. liro^jden, 11 Bq.

V. Weatminsler llrtjmho (\kiI. ef<:, 188, 192 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 46.

Co., (1896) 2 Ch. 538; llulli Conl [a) ]'<r>rell v. Aikin, 4 K. A J.

Miuiny Co. v. Otbome, (1899) A. C. 343 ; 110 K. I!. 353.

p. 362 ; 68 L. J. P. C. 62. ('-) ./';/"'' v. r,riV„, 6 Ch. 742 ;

(i) Jeyon v. Virion, 6 Ch. "42 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 389 ; rhilip$ v. Horn-

40 L. J. Ch. 3 j9 ; lie Vnited Merthyr fray, 6 Ch. iTO ; wid see WhUwIutm

(\,lli(riea 15 K.). 47 ; .tnhton T. WestminMer Brymbo<Joal,ete.,Co,,

Stock; 6 C. 1 ). 19 ; Lmwjitone v. (1896) 1 t1i. 884 ; (1890) 2 Ch. S38.
Bawyard$ Coal Co., 6 A. C. 2A,

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST TRESPASS. j

coal 80 rendered useless, as well as for that actually gotten by aty-Y.
the defendant (c).
Coprolites beneath the surface of a copyhold tenement

are minerals, and the property in them is in the lord, who
cannot, however, dig for them without the copyholder's per-
mission. In a case where the lord of a manor had entered
upon a copyhold tenement and taken coprolites without the
consent of the copyholder, it was held that the copyholder
could maintain an action for an injunction and damages, and
that the proper measure of damages was the gross amount
produced by the sale of the coprolites, less the expenses of
the working, and such a sum by way of profit as would have
induced a stranger to undertake the working (d).

(e) WiUiamt y. Baggttt, 25 W. E. (,/) Att.-Gen. v. Tmnlint, 6 C. D
874 ; 4«L. J.C1I.M9. 7fiO ; 46 L. J. Ch. 644.

I

10—2

CHAPTEB VI.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

ill-

Clwp. VI.
S«et.l.

Xnuance as
diitingniahed

SECTION 1.— PRINCIPIiKS ON WHICH TriB COURT ACTS IH
B8STBAIKIK0 NUIBAITCB.

Thk jurir-'iction of the Court by way of injunction in cases

of nuisance is in aid of th legal right, and has for its object
the protection of property from irreparable or at least from
substantial and material damage pending the trial of the
right. If the injury is of so material a nature that it cannot
be well or fully compensated by the recovery of damages, or
be such as from its continuance and permanent mischiAf
might occasion a constantly recurring grievance, a foundation
is laid for the interference of the Court by way of injunc-
tion (a). The jurisdiction was formerly exercised sparingly
and with caution (6), but it is now fully established, and will
be exercised as freely as in other cases in which the aid of the
Court is sought for the purpose of protecting legal rights from
violation.

A nuisance is an act unacct Mpanied an act of trespass,
which causes a substantial injury to the corporeal or incor-
poreal hereditaments of other persons. In the case of tres-
pass it is the immediate act which causes tiie injury; in the
case of nuisance the injury is the consequence of an act dwie
beyond the bounds of the property affected by it (c).

Nuisances may be either of a private or a public nature.

(a) Att.-atn. T. NichoU, 16 Ves.
338 ; 10 B. B. 186 ; AH.-Oai. v.
Sheffield Oat Co., 3 De O. M. 4 O.
p. 319; 22L. J. (h. 811; WiUony.
Towneuil, 1 Dr. & Sm. 329.

IJt) lUmri (Earl of) v. Ilobart, 3
M. 4 K. p. 180 ; 3 L. J. (N. S.)
Ch. 145, per Loid Brougham.

(c) Bei/nMs v. Clarke, 2 Tioro
Baym. 1399 ; WetUm r. WoocUork,
6U.iiVr. S94; 10 L. J. Ex. 183;
56 R. B. 606; Lemnum y. WM,
(1894) 3 Ch. 1, 24; 63 L. J. Ch.
570; (1K95) A. C. p. 8;
V. OiUdy, (1904) 2 K. 11. 450; 91
L. T 296; Kimy. J«Uv, (190S) 1

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

149

The only distinction between the two cases is, that a private Chap. VI.
nuisance is an injury to the property of an individual, while a .

public nuisance is an injury to the proj)erty of all persons who ^^jJ^J^rfJii^
come within the sphere of its operation (d). "I conceive,"
said Kindersley, V.-C, in Soltau v. De Held (e), " that to con-
stitute a pablie nuisance, the thing must be such as in its
nature and consequences is a nuisance, an injury, or damage
to all persons coming within the sphere of its operations,
thou^ it may be so in a greater degree to some than it is to
others. For example, take the case of the operations of a
manufactory, in the course of which operations volumes of
smoke or of noxious effluvia are emitted. To all persons who
are at all within the range of '^hese operations, it is more or
less objectionable, more or less a nuisance in the popular
sense of the term. It is true that to those who are nearer to
it, it may be a greater nuisance, a greater inconvenience, than
it Lb to those who are more remote from it ; but still to all who
are within the reach of it, it is more or less a nuisance or an
inctrnveaience. Take another ordinary ease, the most ordinary
case of a public nuisance, the stopping of the king's highway,
that is a nuisance to all who may have occasion to travel that
highway. It may be a much greater nuisance to a person
who has to travel it every day of his life, than it is to a person
who has to travel it once a year or once in five years ; but it-
is more or less a nuisance to everyone who has occasion to
use it. If, however, the thing complained of is such that it
is a great nuisance to those who are more immediately within
the sphere of its operations, but is no nuisance or inconveni-
ence whatever, or is even advantageous or pleasurable to those
who are more removed from it, then, I conceive, it does not
come within the meaning of the term public nuisance (/). The
case before me is a case in point. A peal of bells may be and
is no doubt m extreme nuisance to a person who lives within

Ch. p. 487 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 184 ; and L. J. ^'h. p. 813.

■M Price'* PattHt Candi* Co. v. («) i Sim. N. S. p. 142 ; 31 L. J.

Ldtim Cmmlg Omnea, [IWt) 2 Ch. 1 iS ; 89 B. B. 245.

Oh. «36, 650 ; TB L. J. (%. 1. {/ j 8e« Sgnirt t. CampbeU, 1 If.

{di 8m Att.-am, V. Sh^fiM Gat * 0. 4S», 486 ; 6 L. J. (N. S.) Cb.

C>k, S De O. ML * a. p. MO; n 41 ; 41 B. B. Ml.

180

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

Cbap. VI. a very few feet or yards of them; bat to s person who lives
— at s distance from them, although he is within the reach of

their sound, it may be a positive pleasure, for I cannot assent
to the proposition that in all circumstances and under all con-
ditions the sound of bells must be a nuisance. ... I raay
further say that it does not follow because a thing complained
of is a nuisance to several individuals, that therefore it is a
public nuisance. One may illustrate this very simply by sup-
posing the case of a man building up a wall which has the
effect of darkening the ancient lights of half a dozen dwelling-
houses. It does not follow, because half a dozen persons or a
dozen persons are suffering by the darkening of their ancient
lights by the one wall, that therefore it is a public nuisance
which can be indicted at the suit of the Crown, or for which
the Attorney-General can file an information in this Court. It
is a private nuisance to each of the individuals aggrieved "(g).
Public Buiunce. If the thing complained of is in its nature a public nuisance,
Wfco thonid iue. ^jje remedy is by action in the nature of an information at the
suit of the Attorney -General (h) . The circumstance, however,
that the thing complained of may be a public nuisance, does
not prevent an individual who has sustained special damage
from bringing an action (i). There may, in such cases, be

(g) See Att.-OtH. r. Sheffield Ga» L. J. Ex. 194 ; Benjamin r. Storr,

Co., :» De G. M. ft G. 304 , 325; L. E. 9 C. P. 400, 407 ; 43 L. J.

'22 L. J. Ch. 811 ; Atl.-Oe^t. v. C. P. 162; Att.-Oen. v. Logan,

lirighUnx, etc., Hupphj A»iii:c'"1inn, (1891) 2 Q. B. 100 ; B«W*r v. Pew/fy,

(19«)0) 1 Ch. 276 : 69 L. J. C» '04. (1893) 2 Ch. 447 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 623 ;

{k) Soltau T. De Held, 2 Sim. Martin t. London CouiUy Council,

N. S. p. IM; 21 L. J. Ch. 153; 89 (1899) 80 L. T. 8«6 ; Ckoflm * Co.

B. B. 245 ; Tottenham Urban Di$- y. WutmitMler Vorforation, (1901)

irirt Couneil v. Williammm and 2 Ch. p. 334 ; 70 L. J. Oh. 679 ;

Snni, Ltd., (1896) 2 <i. IJ. 353 ; 66 Att-Oen. v. Brighton and Hove Cor-

L. J. Q. B. 591 (0. A.); Att.-Oen. jmratum Association, (1900) 1 Ch.

V. Hcott, (1904) 1 K. B. p. 407 ; 73 276; 69 L. J. Ch. 204 ; Smith v.

L. J. Q. B. 196; (1905) 2 K. B. U'i7«o)i, (1903) 2 Ir. B. p. 75 ; Boyce

160; 74 L. J. Q. B. 803. v. Paddington borough Council,

{i) Saltan t. De Held, 2 Sim. (1903) 1 Ch. p. 114; 72L.J. Ch.28;

N. S. p. 151 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 89 Shtrringham Urban District CotmcU

B. B. 246 ; Cook v. Magor, etc., qf v. UoUeg, (1904) 91 L. T. 2Us

Bath, 6£q. 177,180; WtnterbelUm Catan Ceun^ CbtMiejl v. Kam *

v. £onli)M%,L.B.9Ex.316; 96 (IBIO) 3 Ir. B. 644 ; CbayMi

nWUNCTIONB AGAINST NUISANCE.

ISI

both an mformstion and an action. The Attorney-General vi.

may file an information to restrain the thing complained of as '~

a public nuisance, and the individual who sustains a particular
damage may join as plaintiff, as well as relator, and hare the
remedy for himself by acti<m (k). The fact that an mdividual
may be nearer a possible cause of injury, does not entitle him
to maintain an action if he has not sustained any privjate
damage, and there is no reason to apprehend that he will
sustain any (l). N ir can an individual sue, though he may
be more damaged by the act complained of than the rest of
the public, if it has been authorised by statute, and is one
which frmn its nature must necessarily prove a nuisance, to
some one or other of the public A public company ex-
ceeding its legislative limits cannot be restrained by injunc-
tion at the suit '>f a rival company, whtcl) does not allege that
it has sustained dome private injury by such excess, though
the act complained of may be injurious to the public
interest (n).

The right of prosecution given to the Home Secretary
by the Act 21 k 22 Vict. c. 104, s. 31, does not supersede
the right of persons aggrieved by a nuisance to have an
injunctim (o).

V. Faddinyton Corporation, (1911) 1 De O. £ J. 212 ; S8L. J. dt. 1A3 ;
K. B. 868, 974; 80 L. J. K. B. 131 B. B. 80.
7.39. (m) Att.-Qm. T. Tkamt$ Cimier-

(i) Aa.-am. Forbt$, 3 11. ft vaton, 1 H. ft M. 1 ; Att.-Gen. t.
C. 123 ; M B. B. 18 ; iMtau r. De Metrcpolitan Board of Worki, ib.
He:d, 2 Sim. N. 8. p. 151 ; 21 L. J. p. 313. See Bxddulph v. St. Oeonje's
Ch. 153; 89 B. E. 245: Att.-Gen. Vestry, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33
V. United Kingdom Electric Tele- L. J. Ch. 411 ; t7io;)/in<t r'o. v. IIVs<-
(/rffl/)A ('o.,30Beav.28"; x-lM.-Oe/i. V. mintter Corporation. (1901) 2 Ch.
Lord LuntdaU, ' Eq. 37" ; 38 L. J. 329 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 679.
Ch. 335 ; Att.-Qm. v. Lotjan, (1891) (n) Stockport and Dutrirt Water-
2 Q. B. 100; *xA CM AH..Qtn, t. toorft* Co. t. Mat/or, tie., of Man-
BrighUM Supply A$»ociiaioH, (1900) ehultr, 9 Jur. N. & 386 ; 7 L. T.
1 Ch. 376 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 204 ; 348 ; Pudtey Oat Ch. y. Corporation
Att.-Gen. v. ScM, (1904) 1 K. B. o/ Bradford, 15 Eq. 167. Se«
404 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 196 ; (1905) 2 Marriott v. Eatt Orinttead Oat Co.,
K. H. 160; 74 L. J. K. 11. 803; (1909) 1 Ch. p. 78 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
Att.-Gen. V. Letvet Corporation, 141.

(Kill) 2 Ch. 195 ; 27 T. L. E. 55i. (o) J«.-f7c7j. v. .i;rf-,7^o;iiaa
(0 H are t. Begent't Canal Co., 3 Board of Workt, 1 H. & M. 298.

isa

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

Chap. VI.
Sect I.

(ii-uHiiils for
iiijiinction.

1-j

The motives with which a suit ia instituted to enforce a
right are not generally to be re^rded, but if it cnn be shown
satisfactorily that the suit has ■ een instituted by one man
merely for the purposes of or at the instigation of another, the
Court will not relieve (p). The fact, howerer, that tiie suit
may have been got up by a third party is not enough to deprive
a man of his right to have a nuisance discontinued (q). Nor
is it wholly immaterial, where the public interest purports to
he asserted or an injunction is sought on public grounds, at
least upon an inferlocnfory application, to look into the
motives from which or under which the matter is brought
forward. If a lurge number of the public are in favour of tile
acts sought to be restrained and no prnnf of serious damage
to individur'" be made to appear, the Court will not interfere
upon an interlocutory application unless the public good re-
quires the issuing of the injunction (r).
Wbo •honld aue. The action is usually brought by the occupier or by the
lessee in possession, but the owner may sue on the ground
of injury to his property, either alone or conjointly with the
occupier (s). A lessee whose tenancy has expired during
the establishment of the nuisance, but who has agreed for
a renewal of the lease, may maintain an action (t). So
also may a tenant from year to year, or even, it seems, a
weekly tenant (u), but not a person in possession of prranises

{p) Ptnlnty r. Lynn Commit-
aioiieri, 13 W. B. 983. 8e« Darifs
V. 'Inn I.i.jht ami (\J<e Co., (1909) 1
Ch. p. 2j4 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 448.

(f/) Turner V. MirJMd, M Bmv.
390, 392.

(r) Att.-deii. V. Sheffield (/at Co.
3 De O. M. A G. 311, 312 ; 22 L. J.
Ch. «11; AM.'Gm. v. OamMdgt
Conmmert' Oat Co., 4 Ch. 71 ; 38
L. J. Ch. 94.

(fl) friV,«»i V. T-mifwf, 1 Dr. &
Sin. 324 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 25 ; Jarksnn
V. Pide of Xricrattle, 3 IJe O. J. 4 S.
275 ; 33 li. J. Vh. 698 ; llroiler v.
iSaillard, 2 C. I). 692 ; 45 L. J. ( h.
14 ; Hhtl/er v. CUy of London

Electric LighHiig Co., (1895) 1 Ch.
p. 314 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 216 ; Colwell v.
.S'<. I'tiiirrat IJoroiiyh Vimncil, (1904)
1 Ch. 7))7 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 275 ; and
iee Jntietv. I.lanrwit L'rbun Cmmril^
(1911) 1 Ch. 393, 401 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 150; Alt. -Oen. V. Leieet Corpora-
tion, (1911) 2 Ch. 495 ; 27 T. L. B.
Ml.

(0 dale V. Abbott, 8 Jttr. N. S.
987 ; 10 W. B. 748.

(») .S(»i/xr V. FtJei/, 2 J. * H.
555; liirhhnlil y. Rohirunn. 4 Ch.
388, 39.i; 20 L. T. N. t<. 259 i
Jotiety. Chainitn, 20 Eq. 639, 344:
44 L. J. Ch. 658. 8m PMtt v. HaU,
31 Sol. J. 744.

INJUWCTI0N8 AGAINST NUISANCE.

168

who has no interest in, or right of occupation of the pro- Cbap. vi.
petty in the proper senae of the term («).

A mortgagee of land after entry may maintain an action Horip«Ni.
for a nuisance eommitted between the date when his right to
en1«r accrued and that of his actual entry into possession {y).
In order that a rerersioner should be able to bring an action Suit by
for a nuisance it is necessary that the wrong complained of
should operate injuriously to the reversion, either by being of
a permanent character or by operating as a denial of right (z).
One of several tenants in common of a reversion can sue
in respect of wrongful acts causing injury to the rever-
sion (a).

If the action is brought by the occupier or lessee in posses- I^mc*.
sion, the landlord or reversioner need not be made a party (6).
An undischarged bankrupt who is in possession may, it seems,
sue in respect of a noiaance without Joining his trustee where Bukrap^
the damage to his property is merely nominal, the principal
and essential cause of action being in respect of the personal
annoyance and inconvenience to the bankrupt himself (c).
When the occupier of land grants a licence to another to do
certain acts on the land, and the licensee in doing them com-

{r) MaUme v. Latkey. (1907) /-iy*<»i',(/ Co.. (1894) 1 Ch. 314, 317 ;

2 K. B. 141 ; n L. 3. K. B. 64 L. J. C h. a 16 ; Colwell v. St.

1134. Pancnu Borough CoaHcil, (1904) 1

(y) (ktan Aeeideitt and Quarantte Ch. 707, 713 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 276;

Corpanaion v. Ilfani (hu Co., (1904) Jones v. IMnrwst Urban Council,

2 K. B. 493 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 799 (1911) I Ch. 393, 4ti4 ; 80 L. J. Ch.

(equitable mortgagees). p. 150.

(i) Wilwn V. Totrn-nd, I Dr. <t (a) /laher.'s v. IloUamU, (1893)

Sm. 3':9; 30 L. '>5 ; John- 1 Q. B. 665 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.

ftone V. I'nll, 2 1., 414; 25 621.

L. J ■ '2: H'i 296; Bell (i) Semple v. London atid Bir-

v. L uand Bai' n. , \Q C. B. mingluim BaUwoj/ Co., 9 Sim. 209;

N. a W7 : SO . . C. p. 273; Me Thorpe v. Brun^/Ut, 8 Ch. 6S0;

Jtiek*enr. Dnk$^2ftwta$0«,tD«. Bhtlftr v. C% of London Electric

G. J. A S. 27S : S3 L. J. Ch. 6M ; Lighting Co., (1896) 1 Ch. p. 318 ;

Mott V. S'oolbred, 20 Eq. 23; 44 64 L. J. Ch. 210 ; and Att.-')en. v.

Ti. J. Ch.Sm ; <'ooperv.Crabtrer, 20 Lewea Corporation. (1911) 2 Ch.

C. D. 590 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 644 ; May- 495 ; 27 T. L. E. 581.

fair Properly Co, y. Johniton,{\%M) (c) Semple v. Londim and liir-

1 Ch. 508; 6.3 L. J. Ch. 389 ; mingham Railway Co., >i i>\m. ;

Shelftr T. Citfi </ Londm Elaetric Bagtr* v. Spenct, 13 M. ft W. 671 ;

154 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

Ch.p. VI. mits a nuisance, the occupier may be made a defendant to an
action to restrain the nuisance (d). So also the occupier of a
house may be made a defendant to an action for allowing the
continuance on his premises of any artificial work which
causes a nuisance to his neighbour, even though it has been
put there before he took possession (e). Leave may be ob-
tained to add as parties occupiers who have acquired an
interest since the writ was issued (/).
LUWUt, a In • case in which the defendant wa. the on-ner ;^n'l/'^/'"Pi«r
..nerofTMut ^ y^caot piece of land in tho metroixjlis which he haa
surrounded with a hoarding, but people threw filth and refuse
over the hoarding on to the land, so that the condition of the
land became a public nuisance, it was held that there was a
common law duty upon the defendant, who was awarp of what
was being done, to prevent the land being so used as to be
a nuisance, and that the Attorney-General was entitled to an
injunction to enforce the performance of such duty (g).
N.iM>c arUing The acts of several persons may together constitute a
fn» MU of nuisance, which the Court will restrain, thou^ the damage
occasioned by the acts of any one, if taken alone, would not
be a nuisance (/i).

Wben th. Court The Court will not as a rule interfere by injunction if the
wiU iatMfen.

damage is slight or the nuisance is merely of a temporary
or occasional character (»): but a damage, though in itself

16 L. J. Ex. 49 ; 61 E. R. 736 ; flo.e L. J . Ch. 718. „ ^ „

V. BM V1901) i K. B. 449, 456 ; (tf) Att-Ge^. v. ^<f«f^'

70 L. J. K. B. 736 ; I.>r,l v. Grrai (1897) 1 Cli. 860 ; 66 I. J Ch

jft«ter»«a.7««y Co.. (191)8) 1K.B. 275. ""^^f;/- ^"l^'

^^202, 2 K. B. 633. Ml ; 80 L. J. K. B.

U{\ Whitt V. Jcemaon, 18 Eq. 1329, 1334.
303 • and M» Chibndl T. PWil, 29 (A) Th«r,^ v. Br„mfitt, 8 Ch. 680,

W 'r 536- Jtnkin, v. Jadc*im, 666; Lanhtoti v. Melh^h, (1S94) 3

4oC 1) 71 77; 58 L. J. Ch. Ch. 163 : 63 L. J. Ch. 929 ; and see

l'.,. \ViWam» V. aahrul. (1906) f^adler v. QrtoA WuUm flaWuwy

Tk B p. 158; 75 L. J. K. B. Co., (1896) A. C 4«0; 68 L. J.

146 ■ as 462.

(e) WhiU V. Jameson. 18 Eq. 303 ; (i) M.-Gen. v. Sh.ffiM Go, Co

BroL Y. 8aM. 2 C. D. 692 ; 48 3 De O. M. & Q. 304. 322 ; 22 L. J.

L. J. Ch. 4J4. I V'tr

tf \ HoHH Prmmtt, tie., 0». v. Bailu-ay Co., 4 De O. J. & t*.
^iC^STcClTa D. 190; H 211; 3» L. J. Ch. 399; CWe

DfJUNCnONB AGAINST NUISANCE.

m

slight, may from its continuance, or coiutuit repetition,
become sufficiently substeotial for tibe interference of the
Court (k). If a defendant cauiM a nuisance to his neighbour,
it is no defence to say that he » making a reasonable use of his
pnmiMa ( /). In eatimating tfie injury the Court has regard
to all the consequences which may flow from the nuisance,
not only to its present effect upon the comfort and con-
renienee of the occupier, but also to any prospectiTe increase
of the nuisance and the probable detriment of the estate. If
the Court is satisfied that some degree of nuisance has been
proved to exist, and to have been increasing, the Court, in
determining whether it should interfere, must have regard
to its further continuance or increase : the interference of the
Court in cases of prospective injury must depend upon the
nature and intent of the apprdiended mischief, and upon the
certainty or uncertainty of its increase or oontinuanee; and
the fact of the nuisance having commenced raises a presump-
tion of its continuance (m). In determining whether the
injury is serioas or mH, regard most be had to all flie mmse-

L. J.
(*)

Chap.

VI.
1.

fortM. 5 Eq. 166; 37 L
Ch. 178; Goldmnh t. Tunh
Well* Improvement Commi$no.
L. H. 1 Ch. p. 355 ; 33 L. ».
Ch. 382; AU.-Oen. v. Cmnimeri'
Oai Co.. 4 Ch. 71, 80; 38 L. J.
Ch. 94; Harrisoa v. Southwark
and VwtxhtUl Water Oo., (1891)
2 Ch. 409: 80 L. J. Oh. 880;
Ho$nell T. AmM Brtad Oo.,
(1894) 10 T. L. B. 861 ; Llandudito
Crhtii Council v. fToodi, (1899)
2 Ch. 70.' 68 L. J. Ch. 623;
Alt.-Oen. V. Mayor, etc., of Pretton,
13 T. L. R. 14 ; Colii-tU v. St.
I'ancrat Borough Council, (1904> 1
Ch. p. 71;, 73 L. J. Ch. 276;
Bekrem JKcAonb. (1905) 3
Ch.614: 74L. J. Ch.815:lmt8ee
Att.-G«H. Ktymtr Brick Co.,
(1903) 67 J. P. 434 (nuisance from
Miiolls iu the summer months) ;
Anilrewt t. AbertiUery Urban
Council, (1911) 3 Ch. 398 ; 80

Ch. 724.

Att..Om. V. Sheffield Gat Co.,
i De O. M. & O. 304 ; 22 L. J. Ch.
811 ; Att.-Gen. v. Coiiiumert' Oat
Co., 4 Ch. 81 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 94 ;
Oremd Junetion Canal Co. r. Shugar,
6 C!h. 488; Owm v. Btagarithift
PaUmm Cigi. 8 Ol 142 ; Tkorft t.
Bnmfitt, ib. 866; Lambbm v.
Mellifh, (1894) 8 Ch. 168 ; 88 L. J.
Ch. 929.

(/) Reinhardt v. Mentaiti, 42 C. D.
686 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 787 ; Att.-Gen.
y. Colt, (1901) 1 Ch. 205 ; 70 L. J.
Ch. 148 ; and aee Knight y. l$U qf
Wight Electric LigU On., (1904) 78
L. 3. C9i. 299 ; 90 L. T. 410. Cf.,
however, aamden-Ciarky. Orotrnmor
Mmaioit* Co., (1900) 3 Ch. 873 ; 69
L. J. Ch. 579.

(m) Goldtmid v. Tunbridge Well*
Ctmmimoner*, 1 Ch. 349, 354 ; 35
L. J. Oh. 883.

156

INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T NUISANCE.

Cb>p. VI.

.1.

Eviilenre i>f
•cientiKc
witi

iinitail

Ceaerof
naimee after
aetioa brMgkt.

quences which may flow from it (n). The mere fact that
• eertain Mt may mom • diminntkm in th* t»1im (rf pro-
perty does not make that act a nuisance (o), but diminution
in the value of property is often of great moment as evidence
of the extent of a Dainnce (p).

In estimating the character of a nuisance, more weight
is due to the facts which are proved than to the conclusions
drawn from scientific investigations. The conclusions to be
drawn from setentifle invectigAtions are of valne in aid or
explanation and qualification of the facts which are proved ;
but it is upon the facts which are proved, and not upon such
oonelasinu, that the Court ought mainly to rely (f ).

Where a man who is entitled to a limited right exereisee
it in excess so as to produce a nuisance, and the nuisanoe
cannot be abated without obstructing the enjoyment of the
right altogether, the exercise of the right may be entirely
stopped until means have been taken to reduce it altogether
within its proper limits (r).

If a plaintiS applies for an injunction to restrain the viola-
tion of a common law right and establishes his right at law,
he is entitled, except under special circumstances, to an in-
junction as of cou.se (»). The Court can grant an injuncticm

(n) Ooldtmid v. Tunbridge WdU
CbmnwutoMM, 1 Ch. 349; 36
L. J. Ch. 383; AU.-at». r. Uai/or,
ttc., of Bimngtlake, 4S L. J. Ch. 739.
Dee Jaut Llanrwil Vrbun Dit-
trirt Council, (1911) 1 Ch. 393 ; 80
L. J. Ch. H5.

(o) .S(/i(i>f V. Camphell, 1 M. 4 C.
459, 486 ; 6 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 41 ;
43 B. R. 231 ; So/ta« v. I>e lleU, 2
Bim. N. S. 133, 158 ; 21 L. J. Ch.
183; 89 B. E. 244; UarrUm v.
Ooodt, 11 Eq. p. 383 ; 10 L. J. Ck.
194.

{p) Sollau Pt Held, 2 Sim.
N. S. p. 158 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 153; 89
E. B. 24.?: IVI'iU v. (U,htn, 1 Drew.
318. See Jarkxm v. Dnke of Xew-
cattk, 3 Do G. J. * S. 285 ; 33 L. J.

Ch. 698.

{q) OMimid y. Tiinliriilye M'elU
CvmmittioMrt, I Ch. 349, 383 ; 38
L. J. Cll. 382 ; AtL-Otm. r. Golntg
Hakh Jiglmm, 4 Ch. p. 186; 38

L. J. Ch. 283.

(r) Cawku-tU v. RutttU, 26 L. J.
Ex. 34 ; Hill v. 26 L. T.

p. 186; i'harla v. Finrhlet/ local
Board, 23 C. D. pp. 773, 775 ; 52
L. J. Ch. 554.

(») ImptruU Oat Light and Coke
Co. r. BncMtnt, 7 H. L. C. 600 ;
and Smmiy v. Lfrndim (Out.) Water
ComnvMiimtn, (1906) A. C. pp. 118,
116 ; 76 L. J. P. C. 25 ; Att.-Chn. t.
Birmingham, Tame, etc., Dittrkt
Board, (1910) 1 Ch. p. 60; 79 L. J.
Ch. 137 ; and ante, p. 32.

INJXJMCnOMS AOAIMBT NUISANCE.

167

where the nuiwnce hua ceased after action brought, though

there ia no doaM tiiat the Court esn, in aadi a eaae, hi tiM ^

exercise of ita discretion, refuse the injunction (t).

The Court will not in general interfere until an actual Tfcmtwud
nuisance has been committed ; but it may, by virtue of ita '*^'
jnriadiotioa to reatrain acta iHiidi, when oompleted, will raaalt

in a ground of action, interfere before any actual nuisance
haa been committed, where it is satisfied that the act com-
plained of will ineritaUy reault in a nniaanoe («). The j^in-
tiff, however, must show a strong case of probability that the
apprehended mischief will in fact arise in order to induce the
Court to interfere (x). If there 's no reason for supposing
that there is any danger of mischief of a serious character
being done before the interference of the Court can be in-
voked, an injunction will not be granted. Ir a case, accord-
ingly, where no actual damage had been dont,. ^ad it itppmni
to the Court that it was quite possible, by the use of due care,
to iHrevwit a foul liquid from flowing into a river, as well is
that some method mi^t be discovered of rendering the liquid
innocuous, the Court would not grant an injunction (y).
If the defendant asserts positively that his acts will not inun an of

(lefeudant not

turn. (IWt) 1 Ch. 73 L. J. Ok. mH--""'
012.

(x) Att.-Qen. v. Corporation of
Manchtiter, (1893) 2 Ch. 87; 62
L. J. Ch. 4.09 ; and fco Ripen
{Karl of) V. HoImH, 3 M. & K.
169; 3 L. J. (N. 8.) Ch. 145; 41
B. B. 40; AU.-am. v. Mayor of
KvtfiUn, 34 L. J. Cb. 481 ; AU.-
Ot*. T. Rathmine$, tk., HoipiM
Board, (1904) 1 Ir. B.181; Att.-
Otn. T. Jfettmgham OerpcriMcm,
tupra.

{y) Fletcher v. limley, 28 C. T).
688 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 424 ; and see
Att.-den. V. Corporation o/ Man-
chnter, (1893) 2 Ch. 87 ; 62 L. J.
CTh. 459. A* to fam ot order in
J%!«A<r v. .6*0%, iM 33 W. B. 748 :
S4 L. J. p. 431.

(0 Chuttr {Dttm) t. BmtUiny
Cori>uration, 88 L. T. 67; (1901)
W. N. 179 ; Bat' htlUr t. Tunhridije
WtlU Oat <■:., 84 L. T. 765; 17
T.L.R. 677; Harhtry. I'enley, (1893)
2 Ch. pp. 460, 461 ; 62 L. J. Ch.
623 ; Ihinninij v. Gro*i epi/r Dairies,
Ltd., (1900) W. N. 266; CarvA Co.
T. Adi 0«f oiirf CafaCb.,ib. 363, n. ;
A«.-O0ik. v. S/ainM Rural DUtriH
Oounea and Squire, (1906) 70 J. P.
Notes of Cases, 545.

(«) Haines v. Taylor, 2 Ph. 209 ;
78 R. E. 71; Dawson v. Paver, 5
Ha. 415, 430; 16 L. J. Ch. 274; 71
R. E. 155; PotU V. Levy 2 Drew.
272 ; 100 R. It 131 ; ElieeU t.
Crou!ther,3l Boar. 169; Att.-aen.
V. Corporatiotk ^Mattcit^er, (1893)
a Oh. 87 ; es L. J. Ol 4A8 (C. A.) ;
Att.-QtH, V. NaUmigham Cmfora-

158

Cbup. VI.
Stet. 1.

AcUoabja
pofcfcaMT-

RiiMUM* by
inoor]>onMd

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

cause a nuittance, or that it is hia intentioD to guard against
• cc>mmitting nuisance, and there is no reason to discredit the
Msertion, the Court will not interfere (z), even though ho
refuses to give un undertiikinK (n) ; luit if ho cliiimM the right
to do the act complained of and refuses to give un undertaking,
the Court will infer that there will be a repetition of the
nuisance (&).

It seems that a purchaser who has not accepted the title
cannot sue anyone (other than the Tender) to protect the
property from Lijury (c).

Companies incorporated by Act of Parliament and having
compulsory powers to take lands and construct works, are
bound to act in good faith and in strict accordance with the
jHJwers which have been vested in them by the legislature.
If they act in excess of their statutory powers and cause
damage to the property of others, or if, though keeping within
their statutory powers, they construct their works in so un-
skilful or negligent or unreasonable a manner as to cause
unnecessary injury to private rights, the paj-ties aggrieved
thereby may maintain actions against them, and may, when
■uch is the apprqiriate remedy, obtain an injunction (d).

(j) WarburUm v. Londom and
Blackwall ItaiUvny Co., 1 Efc C«.
558 ; Haines v. Taylor, 2 I'h. 209 ;
78 B. U. "1 ; Waniltworth Hoard of
Work* V. Londonand South Western
Jlailway Co., 31 L. J. I'h. 884 ;
Fletr.ier v. llealei,. 28 C. D. 688 ; 64
L. J. Ch. 424. See xior v. Bayley,
43 C. D. 390; M L. J. Ch. 12.

(o) Cowley y. Bytu, 6 C. D. 944.

(fc) Phillips V. Thoma$, 63 L. T.
793.

(c) Heath v. Maydew, 13 W. B.
199. >S'e'/ nimre.

(<J) Frewiii v. Leu is, 4 M. & C.
249, 255 ; 48 E. B. 88; Vaiiyhan v.
Taf VaU liailway Co., 29 L. J. Ex.
247 ; 5H. ft N. p. 68."' ; Jmptriul Gas
Co. V. BroadbtHt, ' De 0. U. & 0.
436, 4S9; 7 H. L. C. 600; 29 L. J.
Ch- 377 ; Orond JunetUm (kmal Co.

v. Bhtit», 6 CIl 483, 4W; C'loww
T. 'Stagurdthin RaOwm €•., • Ch.
125. 139 ; 42 li. J.Ck. 107; Otddi*

V. Pro2>rietors of Bonn Retrrcir, 3
A. C. 4.30 ; Lambert v. Corj)ora-
lion ofloH tAoft, (1901) 1 Q. B. 690,
694 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 333, East
f'remantle Corporation v. Aiowis,

(1902) A. C. pp. 218, 219 ; 71 L. J.
i>. C. 39 ; Boberti v. Charing Crc**,
Eunkm, and Ham^fHted Ba&wa^ Co.,

(1903) 87 Ti. T. 733 ; Eatl Lmim
Bailway Co. v. TAamt* Cosuermney,

(1904) 68 J. P. 302; Mid-
uoo<l V. Manchester Corporation,

(1905) 2 K. B. p. GO<i ; 74 L. J.
K. B. 884; Westminster Cur poratimi
V. London and Xorth Western Jiailway
Co., (1905) A. C. pp. 430, 432 ; 74
L.J. CI1.6W; Tilling A Co. Y. Diek
Kerr A Co., (190ft) 1 K. B. 662 ; 74

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE. IM

That statutory {jUwurH uiuiit be exercised in a reuiionable C'k*p.TI.
manner and so as not to ca«iM more ibmage than neeeaaary, '• —

iH well illu.HtiatiMl hy the following cuse (e). Tlic pluin-
tiSs, u wut«r company, claimed an injunction to restrain
a loeal l)ody from lowering the surface of certain atreeta
under which the plaintiffH* pipes were laid in such a manner
us to leave the pijx^s without u sutliciont covering of soil to
protect them from injury l)y frost or otherwise. The real dis-
pute was whether the plaintiffa or the defendanta oa|^t to
Ix'tir (he cost of lowering the jxisitinn of the pipes. The
injunction was refused. Collins, L. J., in his judgment (/),
said : " The point urged is that the fdaintiffs hare suffered
'ismiige l)y tht^ exercise hy the defendants of their statutory
{lowers; that the dtfendunts were armed by the same
statute (g) with other powers which, if used, would have
mitigated the damage, and tiwt therefore they wett bound to
use them. ... It is not on the assertion of a statutory duty
that the argument for the defendants' liability is, or must
be, based, but on the broader propoeititm that being poeaoaned
of a iK)wer of mitigating damage arising from their proceed-
ings under the statute, they are bound to exercise it. So
stated it is nn ply nn assertion of the propositi^ so frequently
ai.'irmed that where statutory rights infringe what but for
the statute would be the rights of other persons, they must be
exercised reasonably so as to do as little mischief as possible.
l l)e public are not compelled to suffer inconvmience tdiieh
is not reasonal)ly incident to the exercise of statutory
powers. . . . Here the levelling of the road could be, and was
effectually carried out without in any way disturbing the
plaintifft ' pipes or infringii g any of their rights. . . . But it
must be admitted that the defendants are bound to exercise
their statutory powers with reasonable regard for the rights of
other persons. I think nbm it is cmce clear tiutt the main

L. J. K. U. ;f.)9 ; I'igyott v. Afuldlfsex Wnmhworth Hoard of Worh, (IflM)

' ouiil,) C.iinril, (190H) 1 Oh. p. 146 ; 2 Ch. 603 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 67.

77 li. J. Ch. 813. See McClelland (/) (1898) 3 CSu 610— eiS; «

V. 1,'.-.-.-;.-.';.-=.'.-r <\-rrjmr,ti-77>, (lOl'.'} 1 T,. J. Oh. 657.

K. li. p. 129 ; 81 L. J. K B. p. l(H. {g) Metnpdb Umttmnt Act,
(e) Southmtrk, tte., Water Co. r. 18M.

160

Chap. VI.
Sect. 1.

Nuiaancet
bj public
companies.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

purpose of the defendants could be completely carried out
without recourse to the power of moving the pipes, the
obligation of the statutory body must be tried by the same
standard of duly as is applicable to private perfons. Of
course, being merely a creature of statute they cannot exercise
powers if the statute has not conferred them ; but it does not
follow thut tlipy are bound to use them because they possess
them any more than a private person would be. They merely
fall under the general principle tie utere tuo ut alienum. non
ladas " (h).

In a case in which a railway company was proceedmg to
erect an arch over a mill race for the purpose of sustaining
an embankment on which the railway was to be constructed,
£.nd it appeared that injury would be done to the mill if the
arch were of the proposed dimensions, but that the injury
would be avoided if the arch were of certain larger dimen-
sions, an injunctijn was granted to restrain the company
from making an arch of less than certain specified dimen-
sions (i) . The 16th clause of the Bailways Clauses Consolida-
tion Act (k), which authorises various works to be executed,
contains a proviso that in the exercise of their powers the
company shall do as little damage as can be. This proviso
does not apply to what is to be done in the execution of the
powers, but to the manner of doing it (J)-

(A) See llol'fits V. Charing CroM,
Kiistuii, iiml Uiii>i)iKieu<l HaHutt;/,
(liM»;i) H7 I>. T. 732; llestmintUr
('orjiomtion v. Lomhn and Xortlt
Wtilm Raih'iin Co., (1905) A. C.
pp. 430, 433 ; 74 L. J. Ch. (i29 ;
TUlmJb Co. T. Didc Kerr A Co.,
(1905) 1 K. B. M2 : 74 L. J. K. B.
:{59; /'rf>«'« Patent CWto Co. T.
l.umhm CoHiitii Coiinril, (1908) 2 Ch.
S t "., 544 : "8 L. J. Ch. 1.
(t) CimU v. Clarence Hailwai/ Cn.,

1 Eu88. & M. 181 ; S li. J. Ch. 72 ;
32 B. B. 183 ; and see Manier v.
Nortktm ami Kattem llailwau Co.,

2 Ba. Ck. 3<M; Staiuton v. T!W-
ryh, 23 B. p. 234 ; 26 L. J. Oi.

300 ; 113 B. B. Ill ; RoberU v.
Charing CroM, Su$bm, and Homf-
stetid Railn^y, (1903) 87 L. T. 782.

(A) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20.

(/) Rey. V. East and llVnt India
Docks Railway Co., 2 E. & B. pp.
466, 474 ; 22 u. J. a B. 380 ; Fenwick
V. East Lomlon Railway Co., 20 Eq.
549 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 604. And see tlie
XaactricLighting(CUuiw4) Act,62 &
63 Viet e. 19,wbed. ckoMSl. wiaek
pro vidM that " noUiing in the ipMial
order shall exonermte the undor-
takem from any indictment, action,
or other proceeding for nuisance in
the evoiit lit any nuisance 'ueiag
oauMd or permitted by them."

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

161

As long as a company keep within their statutory powers,
no action can be maintained against them for any act done in

the exercise of their statutory authority, however injurir it
may be to the property of others, provided the inju / done is
the necessary and inevitable result of the exerc; ;e of the
statutory powers, and provided the works have beei ei>'cuted
with proper skill and care, and in such a way as to c^ i: '.^
unnecessary injury to private rights (m). It is clearly settled
that the power to take defined lands compulsorily and to make
a line of railway thereon, and to use locomotives upon that
line, entitles a railway company to run locomotives thereon,
notwithstanding that in so doing they are causing what in the
absence of siidi powers would be an actionable nuisance; and
persons whose properties are injured by vibration, sparks,
noise, or smol.o incident to the proper use and working of the
railway, cannot bring an action for nuisance (n). But by
a recent Act (o) railway companies are now liable to make

(m) llamiuirnntith n^nhi-ay <',.. y. K. B. p. 129 ; 81 L. J. K. B. p. 104.
Uranil, L. K. 4 H. L. p. 196; 38 (h) llammersmith Ilaihrai/ Co. v.
L. J. U. B. 265; Kast Fremnnlle llrainl : luist Frtmantle Corporation
Corporation v. Annois, (1902) A. C.
p. 218 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 39 ; Eatttrn
and South A/riean Tdtgraph Co. r.
Cape Town Tramujai/$ Co., (1902)
A. C. 381; 71 L. J. P. C. 122;
Canuilian I'aiific Ittiiln'ai/ Co. v.
ff.il/, (1902) A. C. 220; 71 L. J.
1'. C. 51; Uoherta v. ClKtrimj Cross,
Elision and Hamjisteail l,'it<licni/ Co.,
(1903) 87 L. T. 732; A.-<h v. Great
Xorthem, Picmdilly omi Brampton
Railway Co., (1903) 19 T. L. B.
639; Wegtmimttr CorforoHoti
London and North Wttum RaQway
Co., (1905) A. C. pp. 427, 430 ; 74
L. J. (.'h. 629 ; Price's Patent Candle
Co. V. London County Council, (1908)
2 Ch. 526 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 1 ; llortoo
V. Cotmyn Day Urban Council,
(1908) 1 K. B. p. 334 ; 77 L. J.
K. B. 216 ; Wat v. Brittol Tram-
waya Co., (1908) 2 K. B. pp. 21, 22 ;
77 L. J. K B. 684 ; MeClOand t.
Manchester CorjMnrfMn, (IW>) 1

K.I.

Ciuip. VI.
Sect 1.

V. Aiitiois, siijira ; Jones v. Stanstead
Railway Co., L. R. 4 P. C. 117 ; 41
L. J. P. C. 19 ; London, Brighton
and SoiUh Coaut Railway Co, v.
Truman, 11 A. C. 45 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
354 ; ,ttt.-C!cn. v. .Vetn^itan
Rnihrai/ Co., (1894) 1 Q. B. 384 ; 42
W. R. 381 ; Harrison V. Sonthn-ark,
etc., nater C,,., (1891) 2 Ch. 409 ; 60
L. J. Ch. 630; Canadian Pacific
RaUway Co. v. Roy, (1902) A. C.
320 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 61. Aa to
amoke bom engines, Me lect 114,
Bailway* Clanaes Act, 1846 ; sect.
19, Regulation of Railways Act,
1868, and London County Council y.
(treat Eastern Ilailimii Co.. (1906) 2
K. B. 31'.' ; 75 I,. J. K. B. 490. As
to liability of owner for fire caused
by his traction ecgine using high-
way, see Ounter v. Jamet, (1008)
24 T. R. 868.

(o) Buhray Fixes Aot, 1906 (6
Edw. 7. c. 11). iMt 1. "Bj
11

162 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

Cha,.. VI. good damage to agricultural lands or crops caused by sparks
from their engines, notwithstanding that the engines are being
Ki,e« cau,ea y^ed Under their ststutory powws.

^^Z. Where a company causes a nuisance by the exercise o
bjei«oi«of powers in pursuance of a Provisional Order of the Board ot
Trade, it is protected in the like manner as in the case of
the exercise of other statutory powers (p).

Where a thing may be done undor statutory powers m one
of two ways, one of which is injurious to private rights, and
the other is not, it must as a rule be done in a manner which
will not be injurious (g). Where a company was authorised
to pave certain roads with wood paving, and used blocks coated
with creosote, the fumes from which injured the plamtiff s
plants, the company were held liable to the plaintiff for the
injury which he had sustained, although they did not know
that the use of creosoted wood might cause damage, and
although they had not been guilty of negligence, on the ground
that they were not authorised by their Act to use this par-
ticular kind of paving (r). But where a company is expressly
given by their Act power to carry out certain works by alterna-
tive methods, they are entitled to adopt whichever method
they consider the better and will not be liable for injury
resulting to a third party from having carried out their works

in such manner («).

Where a statute or Provisional Order expressly confers a
power but adds ii proviso that no nuisance must be created, it

1 (3) the claim for damage is limited A. C. p. 1 19 ; 66 L. J. P. C 1 ; see
to 1001 and by sect. 3 notice of U'eiimintter Corporatim v. Lo,„lmi
claim has to be *ent to the company and NoHh Wettern Bailway (-o
within a limited time. See Jfortin (1908) A. C. p. 433; .4 L. J. Ch.
.■ areatEaamiBaitwny Co., {1912) 629; Wert y. Srulol Tramway*

2 K. 15. 406 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 828. Co., (1908) 2 K. B. 14 ; 77 L. J. K. B.
( n ) NcJioMil Tflephotie Co. v. 684.

nnlr, (1893) 2 f'h. 186 ; 62 L. J. (r) Wf»tv. BruM Tramway* Co.,

(u) Ftnwick V. East I.cdou Rail- (») I»im,,hy v. Montreal Lujht Co.,

Co., 20 Eq. M4 ; 4-. L. J. Ch (1907) A. C. 454 ; 76 L. J. P^ C.

g^ . y„rton V. Lmdon and North 71: and see M' Vhlland v. Man-

H'«temAltlH'nye(».,9C.D.p.633; che»ter Corporatim, (1912) 1 K. B.

47 L. J. Ch. 889; Oytlon v. Ahtr- p. 130; 81 L. J. K. B. p. 104.
itm imrift Tramway* Co., (1897)

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

168

is no defence to say that the work cannot be done without ^•

creating a nuisance (t), and if statutory powers are conferred '—

under circumstances in which the powers may be exercised
without in themselves causing a nuisance, and new a ' un-
foreseen circumstances render the exercise of the powers im-
pos-'ible without a breach of the law, these jwwers cannot be
ez3rci8ed without making the parties liable («). If, howerer,
ii.3 Act necessarily requires something to be done which
cannot be done without creating a nuisance, or if, as to those
things which may or may not be done under it, there is evi-
dence on the face of the Act that the legislature supposed it
impossible to be done somewhere and under some circum-
stances without creating a nuisance, an action will not lie (x).
Where, however, the terms of a statute are not imperative,
but only permissive, and it is left to the discretion of the
persons empowered to determine whether the general powers
committed to them shall be put in execution or not, the fair
inference is that the legislature intended that discretion to
be exercised in strict conformity with private rights, and
did not intend to confer licence to commit nuisance in any
place which might he selected for the purpose (:;). In other
words, where the statutory power is permissive and not im-
perative, the legislature must be held to have intended that
its exercise is not to be in prejudice of the common law rights
of others (z). The presumption is that a public body, whether
(t) See Jorite»<m v. Sutton, etr., [x] Metrnpolitan District Asylum
das Co., (1898) 2 Ch. 614 ; 67 L. J. v. /Hll, 6 A. C. 193 ; fiOL. J. Q. B.
Ch. (i(>H; (1899) 2 Ch. 218; 68 253; and see Prire't Patent Candle
L. J. Ch. 467 ; Cohrell v. St. Pam raa Co. v. London County Council, titpra.
Borough Council, (1904) 1 Ch. 707 ; (y) lletropolUan Dittriet Atglum
73 L. J. Ch. 278 ; Uidtoood v. Man. v. ffitt, 6 A. 0. 198 ; flO L. J. Q. B.
cheOer CorfonObm, (190B) 2 K. B. 3M ; Cana'fian Pacific Sailumy Co.
897; 74 L. J. K. B. 884; AH-Oen. v. Parkt, (1899) A. C. 835, 546 ; 68
V. Dorchater Ct^ftoration, (1906) L. J. P. C. 89 ; Metrt'jtolita n n'ater
70 J. P. 281 ; Demeram EleHrir Board v. Solomon, (1908) 2 Ch. 214
l.iuhtin,/ Co. V. White, (1907) A. C. 220; 77 L. J. Ch. 617; McClelland
:i.'iO ; 76 L. J. P. C. 54 ; Price's v. Mnm hestrr Corporation, (1912) 1
l'atf.iit Candle Co. v. London County K. B. pp. 1;J0, 181; 81 L. J. K. B.
'•<»(,ift/. (1908) 2 Ch. p. 544; 78 pp. 104. 106.
^' J' Ch. 1. (t) Oamdkm Paeifk nail way Co.

(u) Qvemr.BraiH/vrdNmrigatiwi r. Park*, (t8M) A C. p. 040 •
Co.. 8 B. * 8.681 ; 84 L. J. a B. 191. 88 L. J. P. 0. 89; Mttrrmclitan

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

a trading boi! ot, is not authorised to create a nuisance
or otherwise afleci private rights unless compensation is pro-
Tided, but this presumption must yield where the langu vge of
the statute is sufficiently dear to authorise the ni. ance
without compensation (a). The burden lies on those who
seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away
the private right of individuals to show that hy express words,
or by necessary implication, such an intention appears (&).

In Gas Ught arid Coke Co. v. Vestry of St. Mary Abbots,
KenBington (c), the plaintiffs, a gas company, laid down pipes
under the surface of certain streets, as they wore bound by
statute to do, for the pi'rpose of supplying gas t" light the
street and houses in the street. The streets were vested in Ac
defendants, the vestiy of the parish, by certain statute;, which
gave them the authority of the surveyor of highways with
the duty to repair, but without prescribing any particular
mode of repair. The defendants used steam rollers for the
repair of the streets, as bein^ .i mode of repair most advan-
tageous to both the ratepayers and the public, but the rollers
used were so heavy as to freqaeintly injure the plaintiffs'
pipes, though the pi[)es were sufficiently below the surface as
not to have been injured by the ordinary mode of repair, if
such rollers had not been used. It was held that the plaintiffs
were entitled not only to recover damages for the injury
which had been done, but also to have an injunction to re-
strain the defendants from using steam rollers in such a
way as to injure the jripes of the plaintiffs.

" The authorities show," said the Court (d), " that an action
lies for an injury to property unless sudi injury is expressly

Water Board v. Solomon. (1908)
3 Oh. p. m

(a) Prie^i Patent Candle Co. x.
London County Council, (1908) 2 Gh.
pp. 643, 544 ; 78 L.J. Ch. 1.

(fc) Metropolitan Diatrtct Aiyliim
V. HiU, 6 A. C. 193 ; 50 1.. J. Q. U.
153; Aff -fl">, V. Di^rheMfr Cnr-
portUion, (1906) 94 L. T. p. 688 ;
Metropotiian Water Board v. Solo-
num. (19M) S Ch. p. 3S0; TTL. JT.

Ch. 017.

(e) IsaB. D. 1; ML. J. a B.
414; M«Att. atn. T. SeaU, (1904)
1 K, B. 404 ; 73 L. J. K. B.
196; (1906) 2 K. B. 160; 74 L. J.
K.B. 803; Corporation o/ Chienttler
V. Fuster, (1906) 1 K. B. 167; 78
L. J. K. B. .^S.

(>0 15 Q. B. D. p. 0; 64 L. J.
a B. p. 418.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

165

authorised by statate or is physically speaking the necessary . c>»p- vi.

consequence of what is so authorised. If in this case the ^'

defendants were expressly authorised by statute to use steam
rollers of such a weight as necessarily to injure the plaintiff's
pipesj the plaintiff would have no ground of c(>nii)Iaint. The
case would be one of damnum absque injuria. The same
consequences would follow if the f'vifendants were expressly
authorised by statute to repaii in some way which necessarily
required the use of heavy steam rollers or other machinery
which could not be worked without injuring the plaintiffs'
pipes, there again, although such rollers or machinery were
not expressly mentioned, their use would be authorised by
necessary implication and the plaintiffs would be without
redress. But unless some such statutory enactment can be
shown to autlii ise the defendants to injure the plaintiffs'
pipes, the plaintiffs are entitled to redress."

Accordingly, where a tramway company who were autho-
rised by their Act to pave a road with wood paving, used for
the purpose wood blocks coated with creosote, and the fumes
from tlie creosote injured the plaintiff's shruus, the company
were held liable to the plaintiff for the damage ^ich he had
sustained, although they did not know that (he use of creosoted
wood might cause damage, and although they had not been
guilty of negligence, on the ground that they were not
authorised by their Act to use this particular kind of wood
paving (c).

The burden of proving that the creation of a nuisance will Onu» of proof,
be the inevitable result of carrying out tiie direction of the

legislature lies on the persons seeking to justify the nuisance.
If the order of the legislature can be carried out without
nuisance, they cannot plead the protection of the statute ; and
on the other hand, it is insufficient for their protection that
what is contemplated by the statute cannot be done without
nuisance unless they are also able to show that the legislature
has directed it toi be done (/).

(() Wtst V. BrM Trnnways Co., v. Hilt, 6 A. C. 193, 213 ; 50 L. J.

(!«()N) 2 K. B, 14 : 77 I-- J. K, B. Q. H. a.Y.i, Sab .Sellort y, Mf'tl-rk

6H4. /.OTd/ HmnI of Jlmlth, 14 Q. B. D.

(/) MttropoMan Atylttm DUtriet 929 ; aud E<ut FremantU Cor-

166

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

Chap. VI.
1.

CompMiution.

Bigbt to com-

pcnnticn

anigMl>le.

Where no
proTuiun for
compensstion
in the itatute.

Where injury to private rights results from the construction
of works which liave been authorised by statute and which
have been executed witli proper skill and care, the party
injured must look for his remedy to the proviso for compensa-
tion, if any, within the statute which authorises the works (g).

The claim to compensation under s. 68 of tlu> Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845, is not a claim to damages for a
wrongful act, but is a claim to a right to compensation for
damage v.hicli might bo done in the lawful exercise of powers
conferred on a corporation by the legislature, and such a
claim is capable of assignment (fc).

If there be no provision for compensation in the statute,
the i)arty injured is without a remedy (i), hut an intention
to take away or injure property without making compensation
should not be imputed to the legislature unless it be expressed
in the statute in unequivocal terms (Ar).

The statutory tribunal, however, is only established to give
compensation for losses sustained in consequence of what the
incorporated company may do lawfully under the powers
which the legislature has conferred on them. For anything
done in excess of those powers, or contrary to what the lepsla-
ture in conferring those powers has commanded, the proper
remedy is by action (l).

poratim v. Annnis, (1902) A. C.
p. 218 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 39.

(j) Hammtrmith Railway Co. v.
Branrf, L. B. 4 H. L. 171 ; 3« L. J.

Q. B. 265 ; Kirh;/ v. School Board
f,fr llarnxjate. (1896) 1 Ch. 437 ; 65
L. J. Ch. 736; Mnm hett^r, Sheffield,
anti l.iniiilitshire Ilailtvay ('". v.
Aiiilersou, (1898) 2('h. 394 ; 07 L. J.
Ch. 568 ; Jordi-snn v. Siittim, etc.. Oat
Co., (1898) 2 Ch. p. 621 ; 67 L. J.
Oh. 666 ; (1899) 2 Ch. p. 257 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 467 ; Long Eaton Becrta-
tioii Oroiimla Co. y. Midland SaUway
Co., [vm) 2 K. B. 674; 71 L. J.
K. B. 837 ; Priee't Patent Candle
Cv. V. London Cuimiy '''■tirtdl, (IPO-S)
2 Ch. at pp 643, 54 1 ; 78 L. J. Ch.
1; I'ij/gott V. Middleux County

Council, (1009) 1 Ch. jip. 143, 145;
77 L. J. Ch. 813.

(A) Dawtoi V. (Ireat Sorthem and
City Jlailu-ay Co., (1905) 1 K. B.
260 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 174.

(i) Hammenmith BnHtvaj/ Co. T.
Ilrai.d, L. E. 4 H. L. p. 202 ; 88
I,. J. Q. B. 265; Att.-Oen. v.
Meirojiolitan Uaihvay Co., (1894) 1
Q. B. 384 ; 42 W R. 381 ; Rdtertt v.
Charimj Croit, Snston, and llamp-
$tead Railway, (1903) 87 L. T. p. 734.

(fc) The Cammitnonern ./ I'iddic
Work* (Cop* Colony) v. Logan, (1903)
A. C. 366 ; 72 L. J. P. C. 91.

{I) Caledonian RaiUmy Co. v.
Pnli, .S Mac/}. : Keg. v. Darling-
Urn Board Health, 0 B. & S. 562 ;
36 L. J. 1*. B. 45 ; Jmptrial Oai Co.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

167

A public oompeny, when ucting in conformity with its ^Ah*. Vt.

statutory powers, need not, before commencing works which — — -

may injuriously afiect lands, make or tender compensation nMa'aoru "
for tile conjectural damage (m).

By the 68th section of the Lands ClauaoH Act, 8 t 9 Vict, of worta.
c, 18, it is provided Hiat if any party shall be entitled to com- J^^f^^ro"^
pensation in reepect of any lands or of any interest therein, ^in»g« b*'*™

^ " Mcktng conapcn-

which bhall have been taken for or injuriously affect«d by the sation under tb«
execution of the works, and for which the undertakers shall
not have made compensation, it shall be assessed in the
manner therein mentioned. The Courfc will not restrain by in-
junction proceedings for an assessment of compensation under
the Act, but will leave the question of the right to compensa-
ti(m to be decided in an action on th»award (n). If, howerer, „ j,
there is an original equity affecting the claim, the Court will «» originji
interfere. " Where there ia an ojrigmal equity anectmg the the claim, tho
claim," said Turner, L.J., in Duke of Norfolk r. Termaniio), ukeuilway""'
" the statute does not take it away. It is, I think, as much
the duty of this Court to interpose by injunction in such
cases as in the ordinary attempt to put in force the powers
of the Act fcMr compulsory purchase, wbu-e tbe {mrcfaase has
been the subject of contract." Where accordingly there had
been some treaty for compensation for damage with a land-
owner wlucfa had not been oompletod or carried out, but there
was evidence to show that he had received consideration for
an agreement which he refused to perfect, the Court re-
strained him from taking proceedings to obtain oompensaticHi
under the section (p).

y.Broadbtnt,TJ)eQ.U.AO.4B0; (n) Satt md Wttt India Dedm r.
T H. L. C. 600 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 377 ; Oattke, 3 Mao. AO. 166; 87 B. B.
and see J'iggott v. MiddUtac Cimnty 49 ; London and Blatkwatl Bailway
Cuundl, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 1«; 77 Co. y. Vrott, 31 C. D. p. 367; 55
L. J. Ch. 813. L. J. Ch. 313; llrierley Hill Local

(m) Hutton v. London and South Board v. Peartall, 11 Q. B. D. 734;
Wetttnt Railway Co., 7 Ha. 259 ; 18 9 A. C. 695 ; 64 L. J. a B. 26.
L. J. Ch. 346 ; 82 E. K. 99 ; Macey (o) 9 Ha. p. "48.
T. U^rofMan Board of Worki, 33 ( p ) Dv)ce of Norfolk t. Tennant,
L. J. Ch. S77 ; M* CMt t. SeAooi 9Hik74ft:S9B.B.6i8. See
Board of London, 1 Ch. 130; 43 Londori and Sotdk WttUm Railvay
L.J. Ch. 421. Co. Coward, S B*. C». 710;

168

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NXJISANCE.

Ch«p. VI.
8<ct 1.

N:iiHince by
public bodiM.

The principles upon which the Court proeeeds in reatrsin-

ing nuisance on the part of incorporated companies are also
applicahlo to nuisance on the part of public bodies incor-
poralfd l)y Act of Parliament for a public purpose and for
the promotion of the benefit of the connnunity (q) . Inasmuch
as these bodies are acting on behalf of the public interest,
the Court is disposed to assume that what they do, provided
it be within the statutory powers, is a fair exercise of the
discretion which has been reposed in them by the legisla-
ture (r), and will not interfere with them in the exercise of
the {xjwers given to them by statute so long as they do not
conduct themselves in an arbitrary or oppressive manner, and
do not appear to be actuated by corrupt or improped*
motives (s). But in the absence of an express power to create
a nuisance, a public body executing drainage or other works
for the benefit of their district are bound to exercise their
powers so as not to create a nuisance {t), and where a statute

Maumtll V. Midland Great Wtdem
of Irelaml Rniltmif Co., 1 H. AM.
130: 32 L. J. eh. 513.

( <j ) t'reirii, v. Leiri; 4 M. & C.
249; 48 E. H. K8; Att-den. v.
Bishoji (</ Mnnch-atrr, L. R. 3 Kq.
p. 465 ; see Price's I'ntiut Cauille Co.
V. London County Council, (1908)
2 Ch. pp. 543, 644 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 1.

(r) See Fatter r. Hortuby, 2 Ir.
Ch. 445 ; Cro»$man T. Brikol and
SoittI' ir.i/o Unilway Co., 1 H. AH.
p. 342 ; Att.-Oen. v. Great Kastem
llaihmij Co., (i Ch. p. 576. See
Wfitiiiiiislei- ('(iriioration v. I.omlim
(111(1 Xorlh ll'eatern Railirai/ Co.,
(1905) A. C. 432 ; 74 L. J. t'h. 629.

(») SUiintmiy. Woolrych, 23 Beav.
226 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 300; 113 B. B.
Ill J Att.-Qtn. \. Mdtropclitan
Board of Worht, 1 H. A M. p. 315 ;
Sto- lttcm and Darlington Railumij Co.
V. Brown, 9 H. L. C. p. 256;
:lu!.!!:'ph V. St. (m>,-yr's Ve-try, 3
I). J. * S. 493 ; 33 ju. J. Ch. 411 ;
Westminittr Corporatim v. London

and North Western liailway Co.,
tupm: and we Davit Bromley
Corporation, (1908) 1 KB. 170;
77 L. J. K. B. 61.

{t) Att.-llcn. V. LeeJt Corjioration,
5 ( h. 5H3 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 711 ; Att.-
(Ien. \. Colney Hatch Asylum, 4 Ch.
146 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 265 ; AH.-Gen. v.
(iatliyht and Coke Co., 7 C. D. 217 ;
47 L. J. Ch. 634 ; Shel/er v. City of
London EUOrie Lighting Co., (1896)
1 Ch. 287; 64 L. J. Ch. 216;
Jordeton r. Sutton, etc.. Oat Co.,
(1899) 2 Ch. 217 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 467;
Iloherte v. Charing Crou, Eutton,
ami ffampitead Hailway Co., (1903)
87 L. T. 732; Mid((-ood it- <'o. v.
Manchetter Cori>oration, (1905) ; 2
K. B. p. 606 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 884 ;
Tilling & Co. v. Die):, Kerr d Co.,
(1906) 1 E. B. 662 ; 74 L. J. E. B.
359 ; Att.-Gen. v. Dorthttltr Corpo-
ration, (1906) 70 J. P. 281 ; Priest
Paimt Crndl* Oo, T. London Oottnty
Council, (1908) 2 Ch. 64S, M4 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 1.

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

169

or Provisional Order exprenly eonfsn a power to carry out

certain works with a proviso that no nuisance muat be created, —————
it is no defence t say that the work cannot be done without
causing a niii8ai.ce («}. The fact that a large populatimi
may suffer unless the rights of an individual are invaded
cannot be taken into consideration by the Court (x). Con-
sideration of public welfare may, however, justify the sus-
pension of an injunction upon terms, but do not justify the
denial of relief to the person whose rigLia havu been
affected {y).

If a pubh'c body is transgressing the powers which have

liecn conferred on it by the legislature, or is doing an illegal
act which in its nature tends to the injury of the public, it
is not necessary on information by the Attorney-General to
provo that injury to the public will result from the act com-

piuinedof (z).

In a recent case, a railway company was by its Act, which Whiretuiat*
incorporated the Railways Clauses Act, 1846, «npowered to aTideno* of
carry the railway across a turnpike road on the level. The J,"^gj'^„jj
company constantly drove trains over the level crossing at p^^^J
a speed exceeding four miles an hour in breach of the pro- ~
visions of sect. 48 of the Railways Clauses Act. On an
information filed by the Attorney-General the company set up
as a defence that there was no proof of any injury occasioned
to the public by tiie company's non-obeemince of the pro-
visions in question, and that the inconvenience cnnsed to the
public by the existence of the level crossing would be increased
if the company complied witii sect. 48 of the Bailways Clauses
Act. It was tiiere held, however, that tiie informatifm being

(ii) Mulivoal <f Co. V. MtmdtMttr (y) Prire'l Patent Candle Co. v.

('(irimraiion, Price'i Patent Candle London County Cmmtil, {190S) 2 Ch.

Co. V. London ('oiintt/ Council, tuj'ra. 314; 78 L. J. Ch. 1.

(r) Att.-Gen. v. Horough of liir- [z] Att.-den.y.Cockermouth Local

miHf///(im, 4 K. & J. 628; 116B. R. Hoard, 18 Eq. 172; 44 L. J. Ch.

445; .itt.-QtH. V. Colney Hatch US ; AU.-Oen. y. Shreimbury Bridge

Atylum, 4 Ch. pp. IM, 166 ; 3S Co., 21 0. D. 51 L. J. Oh. 746;

L. J. Ch. 260 ; OObinge v. Hmtger^ AU.-a«». t. Zom/on and North

ford, (1904) 1 Ir. K. 211. 226; of, ir«««r»i Ihilway Co.,{im) 1 Q. B.

Raphael t. Thamet Valley Railway 72 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; (1900) 1 Q. B.

Co., 2 Oil. 147 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 209. 78 ; 69 L. J. a B. 26.

170

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

ciMkp. VI. aiod by the Att«rney-(leneral to enforce the express proviiiont

of H statute, the Court could not entertain the question of

whotiier injury to the public wuh in fact occasioned by the
non-compliunce with the statute, und thut the injunction mutt
Attorwy therefore be granted (a). The Attorney-General however is
St'elaiikni t., not entitled to an injunction us a matter of rifjiit in every
injunction u k where a public body is committing u breach of a statute,
aMtwr of right. ^^^^^ ^ discretion in the case of actions by the

Attorney-General ns well as in other actions (h).

Where a plaintiff iiaa proved his right to an injunction
against a nuisance, it is no jwrt of the duty of the Court tot
inquire in what manner the defendant can best remove it.
The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction at once, unless the
removal of the injury is physically impossible; and it is the
duty of the defendant to find his own way out of the difiSculty,
whatever iiu-oiiveniciice or expense it may put him to (c).
But where the difliculty of removing the injury is great, the
Suspraiioa of Court wiU Buspend the operation of i n injunction for a time,
iojaMtioa. ^.^j^ liberty to the defendant to ap for an extension of
time (fl).

The Court will not make an order against a public body or
against an individual to do an act, unices it is satisfied that

it is within their or his power to do it (e).
The duty -^f a locil atithority under sf<[. 15 of the Public

(a) AH.-OeH.\. Lmulmaml Xorth 265; It jtm f'erfry v. Honuey

Wutem Raaimy ' i.,(1899) I a B. liMrwt Council, (1900) 1 Ch. 706,

72; 68 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; (1900) 1 Q. B. 707; hrice't Patent Candle Co. v.

78 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 26. Loudon County CouneU, (1908) 2 Ch.

(/j) .l<(.-'f>H. V. U'iliilleiloii Home p. 344; "8 L. J. Ch. 1; Oiren v.

Kslate Co., (1904) '1 Ch. p. 42; 7.3 Favertham Corporation, (1!H)«) 72

1,. J. Ch. 593; Att.dm. v. (Iruixi J. P. 404; Att.-Uen. v. Birminy-

Jtinction Canal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. ham. Tame, etr., Distrirt lloani,

pp. 617, 618 ; 78 L. J. Ch. S21 ; (1910) 1 Ch. 62 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ;

Att. Oen. V. Birmingham, Tame, (1912) A. C. 788; (1913) 82 L. J. Ch.

rtf., /Xrfrirt Boarrf. (1910) 1 Ch. 48, 46; and lee Att..am. v. Gibb,

1,1,. 53, 09 ; 79 h. J. Ch. 137 ; (1912) (1900) 2 Ch. »t pp. 278, 279 ; 78

A.C.788,812;(1913}82L.J.Ch.43. L. J. Ch. 621 ; Jonet v. Lhmnm*

(t) Att -lien. y.Cdnty Hatch Asy- Vrban I'oiincil. (1911) 1 Ch. 3B8,

lum, 4 Ch. 140, 104 ; at> L. J. Ch. iCo. ill; SO L. J . Ch. p. ! ;-4.

(</) Att.-Qen. v. Colneij Hatch {e) Att.-den. v. dvariliain of

Atylum, 4 Ch. 164; 38 L. J. Ch. Dorking, 20 C. D. 60«, ti()7 ; 31 L. J.

INJUNCTIONS A0AIN8T NUISANCE.

171

HesHh Aet, 1875. to make tudi tewen as may be pecewary ^'i>'P' vi.

for effectuully (IniiniriB their district, cannot be enforced by „ ~ . — r
an aggrieved individual by action, the only remedy for the authoritjr to
neglect by the local authority of their duty, being by coi
plaint to the Local Ooremment Board under sect. 299 of the
Act (/). But the remedy given by sect. 299 in the case of
a locui authority neglecting to provide sufficient sewers, does
not preclude an individuol whose property has been injured,
from oWiiining un injunction and damages iigainst a local
authority in rcHpect of u nuisance caused by their neglect to Lwbiutyfor
perform the duty imposed upon them by sect. 19 of tiie Act, ""'■'^
to keep their sewers in such a c(Midition as not to be a
nuisance (g).

A local authority has not, in the absence of express enact- Diwb»rge of
ment or agreement, any higher right than an individual land- ^K^t^ltttT'
owner to discharge sewage into the sewers belonging to JJJ^jJ^jJjJ^'
sanitary authority of another district (h). But a local autho-
rity may discharge surface water into a natural stream or WaiMvewM.
watercourse, or canal on land belonging to another person
within their district (t). Any damage caused by the proper
exercise of such right is a matter for compensation and forms
no ground for an injunction (k).

The provisions of the Metropolis Management Act, 26 k 26 Notic* of i>r».
Vict. c. 102, s. 106 (I), and the Public Health Act, 187^5, Stfrl'^iii'*'
8. 264 (l), requiring one mmth's notice to be served before m*"***"™' ,

Act, 1800, and

rh. 585, ;*r Jessul, M.E. ; ^«.. (h) Att.-(len. v. Acton ^-<*"a' Act' m?***

<len. V. CiAnen Hatch Aiylum, 4 Ch. Board, 22 C. 1). 221 ; 62 L. J. C'h. '

p. IM : 38 L. J. Ch. 26S; Etmur. 108; and aee IMngUrn Vtitrg t.

Ma»ehmltr, tk^ Sailwe^ Co., 36 JSToniwy Onmeil, {1900} 1 Ch. 686.
C. D. p. 630 ; 57 L. 3. Ch. 153 ; (i) Durrani t. Brankiome Urban

Harrington {Karl) v. Derby Corjiora- Coiinnl, (1897) 2 Ch. 291 ; 66 L. J.

tion, (1905) 1 C'h. p. 220 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 653, and see VroyulaU v. Sun-

Ch. 219. bury ■ on - Thamei L'rban Council,

{/) J'atmore v. OiwaUtwiitU (1898) 2 Ch. 615, 520 ; 67 L. J. Ch.

/ rZ-n « ( 'ounril, ( 1 K98) A. C. 387 ; 67 686.

L. J. Q. B. 635. (A) Durrant v. BraHkMime Urban

is) Baron t. Porldade-hrl^ CMtMe»(,(1887)3Oh.p.306: 66L.J.

Urban Vonnea, (1900) 3 Q. B. 688; Ch. 686; OrogtdaU v. iSwiftitfy-M.

69 L. 3. Q. B. 890 ; AU.-Qtn. Tkmm Urbtm CmmfU.

Aewe* ror/ora(»on, (1911) 20k. 601; (0 Bopealed by the Publio

(1912) 81 L. J. Ch. 40. Authoritiei Protection Act, 1893.

172

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

ch»p. VI. institutuig procewliiigs, w«re held not to apply where the
*^ ^- principal object of the action was to obtain an injunction to

iTstniiii nil immediate injury (//(). Where mi iietion was hond
fide brougiit to obtain an injunction uyainst u sanitary autho-
rity, and at the trial the Court considered that an ii\j unction
was not tlien needed, it was held that tlier<' WiiH jurisdiction
to award damages in lieu of an injiini tion, in »pito of the fact
that the notice of action required by Meet. 264 of the Public
Health Act, 1876, had not been given (n). It is now, however,
l'uhii, A...i,„ri. provid(!d by the Public Authorities Ait, 1893 (.-), that where
VsM " action or otluT proceeding is comnionced against any

person for an act done in execution of any Act of Parliament,
or of any public duty nr aullidrity, or in respect of any default
in the execution of any such Act, duty, or authority, the action
or procuo<ling shall not lie imless it is commenced within
six months next after the act, neglect, or default compl.iined
of, or in case of u coiitiniiaMCO of injury or damage (//), within
six months next after the ceasing thereof (q), and the pro-
visions of any public general Acts requiring proceedings to
be commenced within any jiarticular time or notice of action
to be given are repealed (r). The word " action " as used
in this Act includes all actions in the Chancery Divi-
sion, whether actions for an injunction or declaration,
or actions partly for an injunction, or declaration, and

[ill) Fli'inr V. /.«"• f.fytiin /.ixal sect 1 (b), (il).

y<Min/, 5 C. H. 317; 46 L. J. fh. (/>) ISeo ll<trrii,;/t<m {Karl) v.

(i'21 ; Atl.-(!ni. \. llu'khtij IliKtrd of Ilerh;/ Cinpomlii u, (1!H).)) 1 Ctl.

Hmlth, 20 Vai (>2(i; 14 J. Ch. 'itMi ; 74 J. Ch. 21!» ; HmjiK- v.

545; S,llor<\. Math.ik l.m-id Itimnl, hoiimoter ttiinil Couth il, (190H) 1(K)

14U.B.r). »29; llatemans. I'oplar I.. T. 121 ; 25 T. L. li. 130; Alt.-

DiHrict BiKird, 33 C. D. 361; 56 6'cii. v. r„r/«)ra(io«, (1!»11) 2

I,. J ( h. 14!». Ch. 495 ; (1912) 81 L. J. Ch. 40.

{„) < ■luijimitn V. Auckland Vnim, (q) See Bartutt v. IIVw/" iVA

23aB.l>.284; 68L.J. Q.B. Sorovgh Cou«cit, (1910) 74 J. P.

504. 441, and HttiMt t. Ltmtbm CotMbi

(o) .Mi & 57 Vi.t. 0. (il, sect. 1 CounHl, (1908^ 24 T. L. B. 331,

(h). As to costs where juil^jmeut is where the wan nof isBuad

obtained hy the defendant, and within the i.v month-' owing to

where a pUsiisti'.T h;:K ^ven negotiations for ft iwttlement.

the defendant an opportunity of (r) 8«ot 2 (b), (o).
n>alt!iig amendii before action, lee

INJrNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

partly for damagM, but not interlocutory ap^icatioos or
iippeuls («). — — — -
A penon who oomea to the Court tar relief by faiterloootory i>et >> »»

.... ., . , .... . iiiv|uie«eu««.

mjunption nRiuriist niiisancn must snow due diligcnco in
making the application. Whatever may Iiave been the original
equity of his ease, if he has by his conduct encouraged anotiter
to expend monies or alt«r his condition in oontniveiition of
the rights for which he contends, he haa deprived himself of
his equity to the intwference of the Court ((}. It is not
sufficient in order to negative acquiescence to show that the
pliiititiff gave notico that he ol)ject('d, and threatened (>ro-
coedinga (u). All the circumstances must be considered
Accordingly a man who had acquiesced for eighteen mon^
ill the deviation of part of a riavif;al)|o livrr, and in
the obstruction of a r«ul by a railway ooi. '> .ny, w-s held
precluded from relief (y). So also a man who did not Ale
his bill until two years and a half after the works complained
of as throwing flood- water over his lands were completed,
was held precluded from relief {z). So also a man who had
permitted the owner of the adjoining premises to rebuild
them to a greater height than they were before, and t« alter
his ancient lights and to open new ones (the work being done
under the inspection of the def«idant's sonreyor) was held
not entitled to interrupt the lights after the work warn com-
pleted (a).

If the question as to nuisuice is one which admits of a
determination prospectively, a man should not delay in eoaaag

(«) llarroj} v. Orittt I'ori'oration,
(1898) 1 Ch. 525 ; fi" L. J. Oh. 347 ;
Fiehlen v. Mnrley Corporation,
(1900) A. C. 133 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314 ;
Ambler 4 Co. v. Bra /or^ Vorpora-
tim, (IMS) S C9l AM ; TJ . J. Ch.
744.

(«) Aiitf, p. 21 ; and see ParroU
V. /Wm€r, 3M. &K.640; 41 R. E.
149; irtV/« V. ff nut, John. 380;
.rvhuion V. )V;iati, 2 De C. J. & S.
18, 25; Duke of Lttdt V. Earl
Amhmt, 2 Ph. 123 ; Cokhing v.

Ba'tHt, 1. I. Ch. 286.

{,,) Wirks V. Hmnt, Mm. 872;
123 E. E. 127.

(r) Biiiiknrt v. Uniniliton, 27
Beav. 42.5; 2H L. ' Ch. 473 ; 122
B. H. 471.

(jr) Illingworth v. Maneietttr and
Leed* BaUveay Co., 2 Ba. Os. 188.

(z) Widu Y. JSTimt, 380;
123 E. R. 127.

(n) CotclitHg y. Baisett, J2 Ueav.
101; 32 L. J. Ch. 286. See
MeMtmm t. CWh«. SB C. D. OM;

174 INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

Chap. VI. to the Court. If he abstains from coming until the mischief

is actually done, he may be told he is too late (6). If the

act complained of is caosed by a public company in the execu-
tion and construction of their works, it is more incumbent on
the party injured to apply without delay, than in ordinary
cases (c). Much, however, depends <m the nature aad
character of the nuisance.

Though a stronger case of delay is required to affect those
who assert a public right, than when a private right alone is
in dispute (d), delay, even in such cases, is not without
effect (e). But the peculiar circumstances of the case may
often account for and excuse the delay (/). In the case of a
gradually increasing nuisance the Court will have regard to
flie nature of the nuisance, and conclude that the relators have
been waiting to see whether the nuisance will continue to
grow, or whether circumstances may not of themselves arise
which will check or diminish it (g). If the public hare been
slow in complaining, their delay is a proper subject for the
consideration of the Court in fixing the amount of time to
be allowed for carrying the injunction into effect (h).

The principles of the Court with respect to delay and
acquiescence applicable to the case of interlocutory injunc-
tions apply also in the case of applications for " perpetual
injunotions " ; but to justify the Court in refushig to interfere
at the trial of the action, there must be a much stronger case
of delay and acquiescence than is sufficient to be a bar on

66 L. J. Ch. 662 ; and see Daiiei Itliui/Um Vtftry \ . ffcrmfi/ I'rhan

V. Marthall, 10 C. B. N. 8. 70S ; 1 Council, tiijira.

Dr. 4 Sm. 367. {/) Att.-Oen. v. Colneij Hatch

(M Dawttiu V. Paver, 6 Ha. 415, A$ybtm, 4 Ch. 146, 160 ; 38 L. J.

430; 16 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 71 B. B. Ch. 266; AU.-Gm. v. Lad* Oor-

(f) Ante, p. 21. See Piggott v. 711.

Miihlltttx County Council, (1909) 1 (j) Att.-OtH. y. PropriHort of

Ch. p. HH ; 77 L. J. Ch. p. 820. Bra.l/onI Canal, 3 Eq. 71 ; 31 L. J.

Vertryy. Horntey Ch. 619; Att.dm. v. Leedr Cor-

Vrliaii I'oiiiiril, (HHH)) 1 Ch. 695. iMiratinti, mpra.

(f) Att.-Oen. V. JohiiKon, 2 Wile. (A) Att.-deti. v. PropriHort of

C. C. .s7, lOi ; iH E. E. 15t3 ; AU.- Bnuijord Camil, Atl. Gc:i. v. Cdlntf

Utn. V. ah^fitld Oai Co., H De O. Hatch Attflum, tupra.
IL * O. p. 311 ; » L. J. Ot. 811 ;

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST NUISANCE.

175

the interlocutory application — there must be fraud , juch VI.
acquiescence as in the view of the Court would make it a — ^'*^''

fraud on tiie part of the plaintiff to insist on his legal right;
and it seems that " mere delay " will not disentitle a plaintiff
to an injunction in aid of the legal right, unless the claim
to enforce the ri^t is barred by the Statutes of Limita-
tions (i). In the case of a continuing nuisance the Statutes
of Limitations would appear not to hare any application except
as to the amount of damages which couM be recorered (k).

An injunction being an order directed to a person does not injuDeiiM
run with the land (I). Where, therefore, after a perpetual witkUabad.
injunction had been obtained against a sanitary authority re-
straining it from polluting a river, a Provisional Order was
made constituting a new and larger drainage board, it was
held that the persons who had obtained the injunction against
the old sanitary authority could not enforce it against tiie new
board. If the new drainage board continued the nuisance, or
failed to take effectual steps to remedy it, a new action would
have to be brought (m).

In cases of nuisance, unless it plainly appears that tiie con- Court <rf Apptal
elusion of the Court below upon the evidence was wrong, the willing to refer
Court of Appeal is unwilling to re-open the investigation by Ji^rtforreport
directing an issue or employing experts to report (n).

In a recent case (o), where an injunction had been granted pi»ch«iK« of
restraining a district drainage board from discharging sewage i^art'of'Appeai
into a river in contraventioa of sect. 17 of the Public Health ^IT^**
Act, 1875, and the board had obtained successive adjourn-
ments of their appeal to complete certain works so as to
comply with the section, and there was a conflict of evidence
as to the sufficiency of the works which the board had ewrisd
out, the Court of Appeal referred the matter to an expert to

(i) Ante, pp. 36, 37. (n) Sainn v. yarth £raney)tth

Ik) J(mt$ V. UanrwH Urban Cad CS»., 9 711, 71S; M L. J.

Cornea, (Mil) 1 ai. p. 411; M Ch. 149.

L. J. Ok p. IM. (o) Att.-Otn. V. Birminghatu,

(/) Amtt, p. 13. Tame, etc., Dittriet Drainage Board,

Im) AU.-Chn. v. Birmingham (1910) 1 Ch. 48; 79 L. J. Ch. 137 ;

Drainnift P-^r:!, 17 C, T> fiSi'j; r.n r.r.'..-.rof C. A. as v.iridd hy V. T,.,

L. J. Ch. 786 ; cf. Taj/lor v. Friern (1912) A. C. 788 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 46.
Bamtt LtMl ^ard, (ISM) W. K. 7.

176

NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

Ch.p VI report, and, as his report was in favour of the board, d.s-
J^ Zged the injunction, the board undertaking to mamtom
the existing results of their worto so M to prevenfny futare
breadi of the Bectioa. the plaintiffs havmg hberty to apply
for an injunctioa in oaae of aay breach of the undertaking.

SBCnON 2.-NUI8ANCB TO DWBLUS0-H0U8BB AND BUBIKBSS
PBBMISB8.

wheo ih. Court The foundation of the jurisdi. tion of the Court by injunc-
i„ the case of nuisance to dwelling-houses or busmess
.premises, is such a degree of injury to property as interferes
materially with its comfort and enjoyment either for domestic
purposes or business. If the house is a dwelling-house, h
^aleVr standard of the amount of damage that ca^ls xor the
exercise of the jurisdiction to grant preventive relief is the
comfort and enjoyment in their abode to which the occupiers
are reasonably entitled, and this must be estimated accordmg
to the plain and simple notions «ntertamed by persons m
ordinarj life, and not according to thee held by perso^
accustomed to elegant and dainty habits of hvmg {p . U
house is a manufactory or place of busmees, the rule or
standard is damage of such an. amount a, to render it to a
material extent less suitable for the purposes of busmeas

In deciding whether a defendant's acta hare material y
interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff s dwell-
ine-hottse or place of business according to the ordmary
r4uirement8 of reasonable men, the Court will consider not

163 i '•/^''''•.il'^'iiLed (•«.»m...K.«.r. v. A'.«o. 14 0. D. p.

p. 48B: 74 L. J. Ch. » r 228 ■ 49 h. 3. Ch. 829 ; CWb ».

AND BUSINESS PREMISES.

177

merely the sets of the defendant, but also the nature of the ciup. vi.
trades usually earned on in the locality, and the noises and — .
disturbances existing there prior to the acts of the defendant
which are complained of; and if, after taking all these circum-
stances into consideration, the Court finds that there is a
substantial interference with the comfortable use and enjoy-
ment of the plaintiff's premises according to the ordinary
requirements of mankind, the Court will grant relief (r).

A nuisance which frequently calls for tiie interference of i';<te»t of
the Court is the setting up by a man of buildings on his land "'^^^
which obstruct the passage of light to his neighbour's
windows. Apart from express ccmtract or grant, the owner
of a house has no right to any access of light to his windows
over his neighbour's land imtil he has acquired the right by
prescriptitm at connnon law or under the Prescription Act,
2 8 Will. 4, e. 71. When he has acquired the ri^t, he has
a house with an easement of light attached to it (•), which
easement belongs to the class known as negative easements,
and is nothing more or less thui the right to |»«vent ^e owner
or occupier of an adjoining tenement from building or placing
on his lana anything which has the effect of illegally obstruct-
ing or obscaring the light of the dominant tenement (t).

An action for an injunction to restrain the infringement of WkeMjrtM.
ancient lights may be brought by the occupier of the premises,
whether he be tenant for a term of years (w), or from year to Tenant.

(r) St. Helen't Smelting Co. y. 327 ; Adanu v. Ur$eU, (1913) 1 Ck.
Tipping, 11 U. L. C. 660 ; 36 L. J. 271 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 269.
(i-KW; Slmrge$ t. BrUgmm, 11 («} Jli^fAM t. JM(t. (1905) 3 Ch.
C. D. p. 865 ; 43 L. J. Oi. 786; p. 814; HL-J.Ol 691.
Colh T. Home and Colonial Stortt, (t) CoCi t. Himt and Colmvif
(1904) A. C. p. 185; 73 L. J. Ch. Store; {190*) A. C. pp. 185, 186;
484 : Iligniiii V. Betti, (1906) ? Ch. 73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; Kiiie v. Jolly,
1>. -Mii ; 74 li. J. Ch. 621 ; Kine v. (1905) 1 Ch. p. 487; 74 L. J. Ch.
./'.//</, (I90o) 1 Ch. p. 493; affinnwl, 184; afllrmed, tub nom. J„U,j y.
fill :ium. Mil/ V. Kitie, (1907) A. C. A'»««, (1907) A. C. 1 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 1.
1 ; Rushmer v. Poltw, Alfieri <t Co., (i») Sm l>ent v. Aueiion Mart Co.,
(I90<i) 1 Ch. pp. 236, 337 ; 75 L. J. L. B. 2 Eq. 338 ; 35 L. X Ch. ««• ;
Ch. 79 ; (1907) A. 0. 131 ; 76 L. i. CMt t. Uem* m»d OchmM Btorm,
Cli.365; ■adMeAoMv. A^AfoN (1904) A. 0. 179; 73 L. J. Ch.
(hrpoNaim, (1908) 98 L. T. 718 ; 4fH ; Andrtm r. Waitc, (1987) 2
34 T. L. B. 414 ; Nns Impirial Ch. 600 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 676.
J7<M (V. T. J«kn»mH (1913) 1 L B.

K.I. li

178 NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

Chap. VI. year (x;, or a tenant whose lease has expired, but who has
jwrt. 2. entered into an agreemwit for a new lease (y). An mjunc-
tion granted to a tenant from year to year will, however, be
limited to the period of the continuance of his tenancy («).
Eevcioner. The reversioner may also sue, either alone or conjointly with
hia tenant (a), <m the ground that the injury to the rever-
sion is of a "permanent" nature (b). Where a house is
occupied by a tenant, and the owner alone sues to restrain a
naisance, the Court will, as a rule, look for evidence from
the tenant in support of his lessor's applic»ti<m for an in-
junction (c).

Difference The difference between the ri^t to light and the right to

between^ni^t^to f ,^(^ from noise, is that the former right has to be
tofJeSdoJhom acquired as an easement, in addition to the right to property.

before it can be enforced, the latter right is ab iniHo incident
to the ri^t of pr<^rty, but whichever right is interfered
with, the wrorg done is the same, namely, the disturbance of
the owner in the enjoyment of his house (d).
When action To constitute an illegal obstruction of li^t, it is not suffi-
B«f«rf)^- cient for a plaintiff to show that he has less light than he
tt«^ ^^.^^^^ previously, or that his premises cannot be used for all
the purposes to which they might otherwise be applied, to
maintain an acti<m there must be a substantial interference
with the plaintiff's comfortable or profitable occupation of
his dwelling-house or business premises according to the
ohMnotioB ordinwy notions of pwsfflM in tiie locaUty («). Theobsteue-

44^/ CouncU, (19U) 1 Ch. p. 4<M ; 80

(m) Goto V. Abbott, 10 W. B. 74«. L. J. Ch. 146.

(,) 8mper v. Rrf«f . utpra. (c) CItvt v. Mal.any, 9 W. B.

(a) See Mercer v. Awiion Mart 88S. Btt Badctiger. Duke of Port-
Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 238; Vi.n Jod v. land, 3 Qifl. 703; (htrriert' Co. r.
nJrutey, (1898) 2 Ch. 774 ; 66 L. J. Corbett, 4 De O. J. * 8. p. 771 ; 13
Ch. 102 ; Cvu-jjer v. Laidley, (1903) W. R. 538.

2 Ch. 337:72 L. J. Ch. 678; {,!} Iliyyim v. Beth, (1905) 2 Ch.

Hviytns V. IMU, (190ft) « C9l. SIO ; p. 215 ; 74 L. J. Ch. ti21.

74 L. J. Ch. 621. (') '-'"^^ "'"^ Colimtal

(b) Bme»y. BiU, 1 Bing. N. C. tttore; (1904) A. C. 179 ; 73 L. J.
p. 6M; JW* T. Bkoufbrtd, 20 Eq. Ch. 481 ; A'tfte v. JrJ}y, (1905) 1
p.24! 44L.J.Ch. SM. Ctap»T, Ob. pp. 480, 493; 74 L. J. Ch. 174;
Chrt<m MO.D.M8s«lL.J.<3h. albiMi, / '^ v. JCmm,

4

AND BUSINESS PBEMISES.

179

tion of ancient lights is still, as it always has been, a question
of noisance or no nuiesnee (/) , and the test of nuisanoe now is,
not how much light has been taken, and is that enough mate-
rially to lessen tiie enjoyment and use of the house that its
owner previoasly had, but how moch light is left, and is
that sulBcient for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the
house according to the ordinary requirements of persons in
the locality (g). In determining whether or not the quantity
of light which the owner of the dominsnt tenement will con-
tinue to enjoy after the obstruction is sufficient, regard will be
had to the light coming from other sources which the domi-
nant owner is by gnmt or prescription entitied to receive (ft).

Whether the obstruction of light is sabstantial enough for
the interference of the Court is a question which must depend
on the special circamstances of each case (»). The purpose
for which the owner of the dominant tenement my desire
to use his building in future does not either enlarge or
diminish the easement which he has acquired. Thus an owner
who uses a well-lifted romn for a purpose which requires
very little light, does not lose his right to use the mn» nam
for some other purpose for which more lift is necessary,
and the fact tiiat an owner has obscured in a partial degree
bis own windows, does not deprive hiir of his right to restrain
another person from diminishing the supply of light to
which he is legally entitled (fc). But where an owner of a

Ch«p. VI.
, 3.

(1907) A. C. p. 2; 6 L. J. Ch. 1 ;
Ambler v. Uordon, (1905) 1 K. B.
p. 426 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 185 ; Higgint
T. BtlU, (1905) 2 Ch. pp. 214. 214;
74 L. J. Ch. 621; Aitkmrmm t.
ContuUy, (1906) 2 Ch. p. 647;
affirmed, (1907) 1 Ch. 678 ; 76 L. J.
Ch. 402.

(/) ColU V. Home and Colonial
Sloret, (1904) A. C. p. 185 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 484 ; Kine v. Jolly, (1905) 1 Ch.
p. 490 : 74 L. J. Ch. 174 ; Hiygint
V. Bettt, (1905) 2 Ch. p. 216; 74
L. J. Ch. 621 ; and see AndtrtMtr.
Francii, (1606) W. N. I6a

is) Higgitu r. am, (1M») 9 Ch.
p.>U;74L. J.0k.6ai;«dMe

Colt* V. Home and CoIohM Stor«$,
(1904) A. 0. p. 186; 73 L. J. ClL
484; Aim!* t. Mamtk, (IMS)
W.N. m

(k) OotU T. JIbiM and Colonial
atom, (1904) A. a p. 211 ; 73L. J.
Ch. 484 ; JoUg r. Kine, (1907) A. C.
p. 7 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 1.

(») Kelk V. Pearton, 6 Ch. p. 814 ;
24 L. T. 890; Eccletiattical t'om-
miitionert v. Kino, 14 G. D. p. 226 ;
49 L. J. Ch. 529; ColU t. Sam
and CoUmial Storw, (IS04) A. 0.
p. IM; 73 L. J. 484 ; AmbUr
T. Chnhm. (1905) 1 K B. p. 4»:
74 L. J. X. & 186.

(k) Btakrr. Bower, 44 L. J. Gk
lA-2

180

NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

Ch»p. VI. building containing ascieot lights, in rebuilding his premises
_^^J- _ blocks out iHraotically the whole of Hm It^t whidi his old
building has been receiving, retaining only a small portion of
the ancient apertures, the Court will not grant an injunc-
tion to restrain the owner of the servient tenement from
obstructing the remaining small quantity of light which the
new building receives, as the obstruction would not have been
an actionable wrong in respect of the light coming to the old
premises (Z).

Effect of change Although a dominant owner does not lose his easement of
in internal^ ijgjj^ jjy any change in the internal structure of his building,
how. or by the use to which his building is put, and regard may be

had, not only to ttie present use, but also to any ordinary use
to which the tenement is adapted, it would seem that no rif^t
Light for bpmUI Can be acquired to the enjoyment of light for some special or
V"f^ extraordinary purpose, erm after twenty years' enjoyment

to the knowledge of tiie owner of the servient tenement (m) .
n* In determining whether there has been a substantial inter-

tt 4slc«NM. fgjgjjgg ^ith light, the Court has sometimes relied too much
on the provisions as to 45 degrees contained in the Metro-
polis Management Act, 1862 (»). The provision aa to 45
degrees in this Act was intended to deal with the width of
streets, and was not intooded to lay down any rule applicable
to the light which a man is entitled to enjoy in the city of
London. There is no conclusion of law that a building will
not obstraet tiie li^t coming to a window, if it permits tiie
li^t to fall on the window at an angle of not less than 45
degrees from the vertical. The question of the amount of
obstruction is always a questira of fact which depends (m
evidaiiceinrachcaae(o). Iliere is no role of law that a man

626 ; ColU V. Home arid Colonial L. J. Ch. 484 ; Ambler v. Oordon,

Slor'tt, (1904) A. C. p. 211 ; 73 L. J. (1905) 1 K. B. p. 417; 74 L. J.

Ch. 484; Ankerawi v. Connelly, K.B. 185; Browney. Flower, {\9ll)

(1907) 1 Ch. p. 683 J 76 L. J. Ch. 1 Ch. p. 226 ; 80 L. J. Ch, 181.

40a. (n) 25 & 26 Vict. o. 103, s. U.

(0 Ankerion y. CmnMy, (1806) 2 npwbd, bnt ia nlMtMiM

Ch. 644 ; (1907) 1 Ch. 678 ; 76 L. J. Mwotad by th« Londoa ftiOiUng

Ch. 402. Act, ISM, i».

(m) ColU V. Horn* and QtUmial (o) Mtdmiutkat Oummtmionm v.

Aer«t,(18M)A.C.n^9M.»8:7S IMmh 14 & D. p. SM ; 4t L. J. Ol.

AND BU8INEB8 PRBMIBEB.

181

may build ap to an anf^ of 46 degrees, but it is, generally
; pi^iking, a fair working rule to consider that no substuitial -

injury is done to the owner of the dominant tenement, where
an angle of 45 degrees is left to him, especially if there is good
light eoming from other direetkms as welt, to whitk h« has
acquired a right by grant or prescription. Accordingly, in
judging of the probable effect of a proposed building, the
Court may not unresamiably regard the faet tiiat an angle of
45 degrees will be left as primd facie eridmee that there
will be no substantial interference and may require this
presumption to be clearly rebutted by satisfactory evi-
dence (p).

The Metropolitan Buildings Act, 1855, 18 k 19 Vict. c. 122,
ss. 83, 85, which gave " a right to the building owner to raise
any party struetore permitted by this Act to be raised upon
condition of making good all damage occasioned thereby to
the adjoining premiaes," was held not to authorise the raising
of a structure so as to obstruct ancient lights in the adjoining
premises (q). This Act has been repealed, and in substance
re-enacted by the London Building Act, 1894 (r), sect. 101 of Limdoa
which provides that " nothing in this Act shall authorise any
interference with an easement of light, ae othor easements in
or relating to a party wall."

The shutting out of a pleasant jHtMpeot («), the erection of No injanctioB
disagreeable objects in view (t), or the invasion of a man's ^'^■>^''«"">«>

I praspwt

529; Parker v. Avtnue flotd Co., 2i Atl.-Qm. y. 3 Vm. Sm.

C. T>. 282; Calls v. Home and 453; see Daltoit v. Angui, 6 A.

(WoniVi/ StorM, (1904)A.C.pp. 204, C. 824; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689;

210; 73 L. J. Ch. 484; ud we and CampMl v. iWtfMf[(M Ctr-

Amblfr T. CMtem, (19M) 1 K. B. jmmMm, (1911) 1 K. B. 889, 878 ;

422 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 18fi. 80 L. J. K. B. 730.

(/> ) VolU y. Bamt tmd OoUmM (I) Ait.-Oen. Doughty, 2 Ves.

Stont, (1904) A. 0. 210, Sll; 73 Sen. 463; l'(4ls v. Smith. 6 E<i.

L. J. Ch. 484. p. 318 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 58. See

('/) ('rii/tt V. HalJane, L. R. 2 Roderick v. Alton Local Board of

a a 194; 36 \.. J. Q. B. 86; Health, iC. D. 336; 46 L. J. Ch.

Iloin-kf V. Alexa'iil'T Hotel Co., 26 802, where it wu8 held that a Local

W. li. 393 ; (1877} W. N. 157. Board of Health mi^t under the

(r) 67 ft »8 Tiet. e. eesffi. OmUIi Aal. 1878, enet a

(*) Akbrtft COM, 9 Go. B. M a.; Nmr above gmad.

189

NUISANCE TO DWELUNQ-HOUSES

Otap.Tl.

UbI<m canNd
b; onUwdil act

Protection of
l«gal right
ptnding liti-

BiImm of

•MVWiWM.

privacy by the opening of a window looking Ofwr hit
groonda («), or by the erection of a staircase overlooking hit
bedrooms (x), give no right of action. Nor will the erection
of buildings which prevent goods displayed in a shop from
being seen from places where they would {HreTionsly have
been seen (y). Hut where a view or prospect from a house is
interfered with by an act in itself unlawful, as by an erection
on the highway, an action will lie by the owner or oeeapier of
the house to recover any special damage sustained by reastm
of the wrongful act (z).

If the right at law, and the invasion of that right be clear
and free from doubt, and the case is not me for relief by
damages, the Court may interfere at <mce and grant an in-
junction " aimpliciter " (a), and in a serious case may make
a mandatory order (6), but if either the right at law, or the
fact of its violation is not free from doubt, the Court will have
regard to the comparative convenience or inconvenience of
granting or withholding the injunction (c). In such a case,
if, on the balance of wmvenience and inconvenience, it appear
that granting an injunction would be inflicting a great and
disproportionate injury on the defendant, the motion will be
ordered to stand over upon the defendant undertaking to
alter the building or otherwise deal with it, as the Court shall
direct, if the right at law should prove to be in favour of the
plaintifi (d). If, on the other hand, the Court shall be of
opinion that the balance of convenience is in favour of grant-
ing an injunction rather than of allowing the defendant to
complete his building, with an undertaking to pull it down if

(u) Chandler t. Thov^mi, 9
Camp. 80; 13 B. B. 758; Tvmer
V. SfHimer, 30 L. J. Ch. p. 803, and
cf. Re Penny and Ihe South-Eoiltrn
UnihiHiy Co.. 7 El. ft 660; 26
L. J. Q. B. 22J5.

{i) Brmrne v. Fl«n-er, (1911) 1 Ch.
219; 80 L. J. Ch. 181.

(y) Smith y. Owen, 35 L. J. Ch.
3n;I(1866) W. N. 49; Itutt v.
Imperici Ga$ light Ch, 3 158 ;
15 W. B. 93.

{zyCampbell y. faddington Cor-
ponUion, (1911) 1 K. B. 869 ; 80
L. J. K. B. 739.

(a) PoUi y. Levy, 2 Drew, 271.

(ft) Dauirl V. Ftrgnmn, (1891) 3
Ch. 27 ; 39 W. E. 699; Vim Jod
V. ri„rmey, (1895) 3 Ch. 774; 85
L. J. Oh. 102.

(c) See ante, pp. 26-29.

(fi) Smith y. Elger, 3 Jur. 790,
OHte, 38-39.

AND BUBIMB88 FBSliI8B&

188

required, an injonetioD will imoe («), tii« plaintiff firing c^*r- VI.
usual undartaking aa to damages (/). —

It is not the practice of the Court on motion for an injunc- Aptwintment of
tion to appoint a surreyor to report to the Court at the trial
of the action as to whether the windows of the plaintiff have
hopn in fact obscured by the buildings of the defendant (g).
But if at the trial (or on motion for an injunction by consent
treated aa Uie trial) the Court flncb diiBeultjr in ascertaining
from the evidence the amount of the injury, it will appoint a
surveyor to make a report {h). In a case where the C^urt
was not satisfied from the evidence whether the act proposed
to 1)0 done by the defendant would or would not be a material
obstruction to the plaintiff's light, the Court directed a
temporary screen to be erected to the hei^t of the pro-
posed buildingB and appointed a sonrejor to rttpoxt on tlio
effect (»■).

Whether damages should be given in addition to, or in Injonctionor
Bubstitutitm for, an injnnetion in eases of obstruetion oi

light, is a matter for the judicial discretion of the Court (A:).
When a pla'''tiff has established his legal rigbt, and the fact
of its infringement, he is prima facie entitled to a perpetual
injunction to prevent the recurrence of the wrong, unless
there be something special in the circumstances of the case,

(e) Neirson v. Pender, 27 C. D. IMloivay, [1904)W. H. 124; Colli

43 ; 33 W. R. 243. v. Home and Colonial Storei, (1904)

(/) Oraham v. OmpieW, 7 C. D. A. C. p. 192 ; 73 L. J. Ch. p. 492.

p. 404; 47L. J. Oh. SM; FmntrY. Am to the power of Ute Court on

Wilton, (1899) 3 Ch. p. «W; ^ the S^plkation of • pwty to («d»

L. J. Ch. 984 ; Att.-Oen. v. Alhang inspeotiai of the property, we

Hotfl Co., (1896) 2 Ch. p. 699 ; 65 Order 60, r. 3. A» to inspection

L. J. Ch. 885 ; and see Practice by Judge, see Ordir 40, r. 4, and

Note, (1904) W. N. 203, 208, Ober- Kine v. JMy, (1905) t Cll. 499 i

rhcinitche iletallwerke Co. v. Cxkn, 74 L. J. Ch. 174.

(1906) W. N. 127, as to cross- (») Lftch v. Sc/iiMier,9 Oh. 488 ;

undertaking in damages by a plain- 43 L. J. Ch. 487.

tiff when an undertaking is given (k) (^olh v. Hi mf and Colonial

to the Court by a defendant in lieu /S<ore(, (1904) A. C. pp. 19:2, 193 ;

of an injunotion. 73 L. J. Ch. 484; Kin* v. /oMy,

0;) nattte Co. v. Simf*tm, 34 (1906) \Ox.pp. 49fi. 49ft, S04 ; 74

\v . R. .-IBO. L. J. Ch. 174 : afltmed, #«* n«m.

(//) Kelk V. I'.urmn, (i Ch. p. ./o//// v. Kine, (1907) A. C. I ; 76

810; 19 W. R. 666; AUxitt v. L. j. Ch. 1.

184

NtJIBANCE TO DWELUNO-HOUSBS

Ch»p. VI.

MeMar* of

What pauca bj
grant.

Implied grant
of light!.

such as lache$, or where the Interference with the pl»intiff's

right is small, or can be fairly compensated by money (O-
Hut if the injury cannot fairly be compensated by money,
or if the defendiuit bus ucted in a high-handed nuuiner, if he
has endeavoured to steal a march upm the {daintiff, or to
evade the jurisdiction of the Court, in such cases an injunc-
tion will be granted (m). But where there ia really a ques-
tion as to whether the obstruction is legal or not, and the
defendant has acted fairly, the Court ought to incline to
damages rather than to an injunction (n). The Court will,
however, be careful not to allow an action for the protect i<Mi
of ancient lights to be used as a means of extorting money (n).

Whore a plaintiff owned old and dilapidated houses which
were likely to be demolished within a short time, and also
owned the land at the back of his houses, which was suitable
for bdlding upon, and the defendant obstructed the plain-
tiff's ancient lights, the plaintiff was awarded by way of
damages, not merely the depreciation in Talue of his houses,
but the diminution in value of the whde of his property con-
sidered as a building site (o).

It being a settled rule of construction that the grant of a
principal thing shall be held by implication of law and without
any express words to carry with jt all that is reasonably neces-
sary for the enjoyment of the thing granted for the purpose
for which, according to the obvious intent of the parties, the
grant was made (p), the right to light passes (independently
of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 6) upon the sale of a house

{I) Martin v. /''•<<>, (1894) 1 Ch.
p. 284 ; 63 ii. J. Ch. 209 ; Shel/er
V. City of LondoH EUetrie Lightiny
Co., (1895) 1 Ch. p. 316 ; M L. J.
Ch. 21B; Vmi'iitr T. Laidler, (1903)
•1 eh. p. 341 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 678;
Colh V. Home and I'nionial Stom,
{\\m) A. C. p. IM; 73 L. J. Ch.
p. Wl ; Kiiie v. Jdhj, s»/>r'r.

(m) Shel/er v. Vitii of London
KUctrK Lighting Co., C'ulU v. Heme
and CoUmUd Storm, Kin* v. JoUp,
$Hfira.

(n) <'nllt V. Homf ami I'olmioi
Store*. (1904) A. C. p. 193; 73
L. J. Ch. 484 ; Kine v. J-'lh/, (1908)
lCh.p.496; 74 L. J. Ch. 174.

(o) OHJUh V. JttrAani Cfoy * Co^
(1912) 2 Ch. 291 ; 81 L. J. Ok. 800.

(p) Pom/ret r. Birroft, 1 Sktrnd.
322 (^); Halls. Lund, 1 H. & C.
fi76; HW V. SaiinderK, 10 Ch. p.
884, nffirniinR 44 L. J. Ch. 514 ;
(IViecA/dH V. IliiiriiiiH, i'i C". D. p.
49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 853 ; lirowne v.
Flowtr, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 226; 80

AMD BUBIMB88 PBEMUfOSS. IW

hj the grwit itself, even withoot any speoial word of eon- cb«p. vi.
reyance (9).

Where, accordingly, the same person poeBessing » hoiiHo oi^nt of homm,
having the actual nee and enjoyment of certain lights, und Jil^i^'i'^^'f
nlHO |K).sH<>HHir)R the ndjoininp land, either oonreya the house
in ff'o Hiinpio or dcniiscs it for 11 term of ypiirs, npithcr he,
nor uny {)eruon claiming under him, eun derogate from his
grant by building on the adjoining land bo as to obetraet or
inforrupt the cnjoympnt of II10 lights, iilthout;h the lights be
new (r). This rule of law (1), applies where the grants of the »iinuit*n*»iu
several parte of an estate take place not ahbolutely at the same m,T'ia,[,iI"^
momont, hut ho far at the same iiiomont that they are to be Derogation fiwa
considered as one transaction and done at tho same tiino (0,
and where two lessees derive interest under tho same land-
lord (u). So also the rule applies where a hoase and the
adjoining land are res|)ectiTeIy devised to different persons
by the same testator (x).

The rule will not, however, apply where the buildings are WbM ml* im
in an unfinished and skeleton state, and it ia uncertain"'**'*'''
whether the openings which have been left in the walls are

li. J. Ch. 184. "" I :.ii»elton Timet
(\: V. Warner .t (1907) A. (".
p. 481 ; 76 L. J. V. ( '. KM).

(y) See Broomfield y. iVilliami,
(1897) 1 Cb. a03; 68 L. J. Oh. SOS ;
Oodwin v. 8eMwrppe» 4b CO., (1903)

1 Ch. 926, 932 ; 71 L. J. Ol 438 ;
Qiiirkr V. Chapmnu, (1903) 1 Ch. p.
666; "2 L. J. Ch. 373.

(r) Kelk v. I'eariton, 6 Ch. p. 813 ;
l.enh V. Srhwfiler, 9 Ch. p. 472; 43
L. J. Cb. 4S7 ; n herldi'ti v. llnrnur,,
Vi C. 1). p. 49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 863;
M>/er» V. CatttnOH, 43 C. D. 470 ;
69 L. J. Ch. 310 ; AUin v. Latimer
Oark A Co., (1894) 2 Ch. p. 437;
63 L. J. Ch. 601 ; BroomJUld t.
WHliams, (1897) 1 Ch. p. 603 ; 66
T,. .J. Ch. 306; Horn v. Turner,
• liHK); 2 Ch. p. 211; 69 L. J. Ch.
593. Frederick BeiU * Co., (1906)

2 Ch. 87 ; 76 L J. Ch. 483 ; CahU

V. Ilryiint, (1908) 1 Ch. 269 ; 77
Ij. J. Ch. 78 ; Rifharilmm v. Orahnm,
(1908) 1 K. n. p. 42 ; Browne v.
Flower, (1911) 1 Ch. pp. 226, 226;
80 L. J. Ca>. 181.

(*) CahU r. Bryant, lujtra.

(t) Swaniboroitgh v. Coventry, 9
Bing. 305 ; 2 L. J. (N. S.) C. P.
11 ; 35 R. B. 660 ; Allen v. Tni/hr,
16 C. D. p. 358; 50 L. J. Ch. 178 ;
RuMtll V. Wattt. 10 .\. C. p. 612 ;
66 L. J. Ch. 168; and see VhilHpt
T. Low, (1892) 1 Ch. 47 ; 61 L. J.
Ol. 44.

(«) CoMt V. Oorham, Moo. ft
Uttlkm, 39«; Ahhm v. JrortAo//,

1 Dr. ft Sid. 667 ; I» VvT. B. 3«8 ;
M'amer r. MrBriide, 36 L. T. 360 ;
Cable V. Bryan'.' (1908) 1 Ch. pp.

263, 26-1; 77 L J. Ch. p. 81.

(x) PhUlip* V. Low, (18i,2) 1 Ch.
47 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 44 ; Miluer't Sa/e

IM NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOCBES

ch•^ VI. intended for doors or windowH ( ?/' The rule of law that »
mnn may not deroguto from liis grmt ^ " - not to

apply in fiivour of tlu< plaintiff in .i iMse wlieiv the owner of
two pieces of land, on one of wluch hou«ef. Imd l)c«n bulH con-
taining windows orOTlooking the other piece of land (which
was vuciint), contract. •(! to sell tlio vacati' ; -c I land to the
defendant, and Hi-bsequenlly sold the hou.' 'o ilie pluin!
ulthougli the conveyance to the plaintiff a., oi»cated before
the conveyance to the defendant; inasnn, '. ,s n : ho date of
the conveyance to the plaintiff the (!• .<l..i.: and not the
vendor was the boiieflcial owner in o«iu ' .^ of tlx vacant pi«H»
of Imd (a).

So also the rule that a man mav ir deropnfo frcHU hm
grant wan held not to apply where the vendor hail not. at the
time of the ^ant, sach an interest in the adjoinrng iaad aa
would have enabled him to grant an easement of light n« er
it (h), as where ho had merely a right of entry under a > ntd-
Deropuoofn,™ ing agreement (c). Nor will the rule that a man may not
•»»■»• derogate f«»n his grant, apply if the grantee knew that the

grantor intended to w the adjoining land for a particular
puriK)sf, and that that purpose wa, inconsistent with an
implied grant of the easements required for the enjoymwit
of the proi)erty conveyiil (,/), nor does the rule affec* lli<
equally binding obligation that may in certain caaoa be im
posed uiK)n a grantee not to use his land so as to frustrate
the purpose for which, in the contemplation of hoth parnes,
the land retained by the grantor was intended to be use ! (e).

Co. T. Onat IfortlurH and Ciiij
Railuxin Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 219;
75 L. J. Ch. W7.

(i/) atart T. Huriutg, 27 L. /.

Ex. 286,

(z) I ahlr V. I!ri/aiit,
(a) RedMrniUn, v. .1"", ■'■^ <"• "
317 ; 66 li. J. t'h. OS.i. x o I)<rni>
T. Thcnan, (lSiti>) W. N. 214.

(i) (Jiiuke V. '7,.i/,)min, (KMKJ) 1
Ch. 649 ; 72 I.^ J. ilA ; Mi v.
Finantial Timn*, (!»3) 19 T. L. B.
438.

(f) Quiches. I'lin/ ■:• >!, Ki'i>ra.
{d) Birmiitflhaiii, Dndlru, rlc,
Bankiny Co. v. /f'*i, 38 C. D. 296 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 106: Hodvin v.
Sehwtppt* * Co., (1903) 1 Ch. 926;
71 L. J. Ch. 438. See Frtdtrirk
HefU V. Pirk/ord A Co., (1906) 2
Ch. S7, 91 : '■-> L. J- t'h. -183.

(f) l.i/tMt. Tim-» ''(' V. ir<ir««T
* Co., (llKtT) A. C. |.. 4hl ■ 761. .f.
I'. C. IWi, ./..Mti V. iVireiira,
(190S) 1 Ch. p. 636 ; 77 L. J. til.
40S.

USD BusiifEss pfoaaaEg.

187

Harin? regard to Met. A of tbe 'onToynm-iiig Aet, 1881, th* ck<«. ^i.

fiict thitt in the convi vunce toth !ir( Iriiser t. " Und r^afasad — — — —

by Ihe vfii.l'>r iv <1( -uTilcd ag • . idinj,' land is not of ttself
Bttificient to rthow an inti ntion 1^ it tim rif^h to li i" nof
to past! (/>. The esprtHiflion " lights enjoyed" > ihf^
see' oil s c<)nfin»'<l to the light i iijoycd uUt i-ir •um-
sttti.n .IK would rt-uHonably md ]>< >\)er\y t-ad to .m xp^cta-
ti<m that the »njoTnieiit of tl»t light wotikf be cota'n nad q).
If land ui . |>on is »ii ( anvpyed, th more i itfut n

on tite part oi tho purchabi to buil uptm ■ not i<<iffiei«it
•0 give him a want of ligh'- o\ laD<l ned ^} ^
grantor (h). But if h nan intendiiu' to build on t! d
of aiif: her contrai't^ i • purcl' ^ ■ i; 'id for witl
houses upon it, and ail' wurua faki i ( >iivej.
land with the buildinga erwAtd upt n it, the rig'it ' in<
of he houses r/e /nf<o exih ig ' of tl ' p,. -

by the conveyance, and th .'rau. m iiu> jo righ ■ ite
from his grant by blockin^^' snob (»).

Clcneral words in a grai c n ;. ti which the Gen* ' »l wonU
t-ninto- hud t at time t< it, fx^'nd to |"

•nytliiiij^ which he i. .f<lit subh menuy a. in. Where,
accordingly, a leoaar granted !ft»B*- for tw-rn v-one years of
a house with its »v'- ' ■ » anion ■ lights vore

specified; arH- ai th< ju. of ti., gr»! * I an Ijoiuing

house ff-r a -enn of wirs; and sub ac ^ th«

n \ rsion ex; unt the tflrm in tb iri ^ hiui^' ; and

aiii 'h' "X| ition of the tf"'' 'i"^ build on the

8t!'' !i< -utj^- h- use is. lantip! vhici; might inter-
fere th <i rh«) di .->ed in -.e, those lights not
t-fi' h'- atthc lesaorwaanotbyhis
gn. >^ uiu.

i-jj? 1 Uk 602;

.T^; Itnrd v. On- r. i) 1
KH ; .J rh. -KM

Uj) ' ' T. N -'7*« <f' ' ..

(tine , ;,. HiO;'?I J. Cii. i

(/ \iU,„'h„r,1 V. i ./yfd. 4 A. *

E. n«; 5 L. (N, .)Ka 78;

T. Orat!*, 21 W. E.

■l-l L. T. (M8; 29 L.T. 7.

(A; A V. .-l/rof*-, 8 Ch. 663 ;
42 li. J . ( 'h. 567 ; and seo Bedding-
lull V. -iiiVr, ;;C' C. iJ. ;ji7, 32" ; 56
L. J. Ch. 6S6; 'Imln in v. Schwejqiri,
(1902) 1 Ch. pp. 932, 833 ; 71 L. J.

188

NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

Okap. VI.

Grutof ImkI
ntained.

Orant of houM
ami land to
(liflerent pur-
chaseri Kimul-
tantouslj.

The mere fact of there being windowB in an adjoining
house which OT«rk)okB a purchased property is not conatruc-
tivo notice of any agreement giving a right of access of light
to them (1), and on the sale of a house with windows over-
looking the land of a third person, no representatiim or war-
ranty is implied that the windows are entitled to the acerss of
light over the land (m).

If an owner of land, who grants part to a purchaser, intmds
to reserve «iy ri^t in favour of the part retained, such reser-
vation must be expressly made, and will not be implied,
except in the case of an easement of necessity (n) . In a recent
case (o), where an owner of two adjoining houses granted
we, and retained the other without reserving any rights
over the premises granted, and the grantee blocked out the
light coming to one of the grantor's windowti ^ieh li^ied a
pantry, it was held that there was no implied reservation to
the grantor of the right to the access of light to his window,
inasmuch as it was not an easement of necessity within the
exception to the rule in Wheeldon v. Burrows.

Where the owner of a house with lights looking over his
adjoining land sells the house to one person and the land to
another at the same time by eontempmraneous eoDTeyanees,
either purchaser being aware of the conveyance to the other,
the purchaser of the land cannot build on it so as to obstruct
the lights of the house (p). And where houses have been
built by the same person, as part of the same plan or scheme,
and have been sold in an unfinished state to different persons,
the openings of the windows being sufficiently visible (q), a

Ch. 438; Qniekf v. Chapman, (1903)
1 Ch. p. 666 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 873 ;
Davit T. Town Propertitt Corpora'
Men. (1908) 1 Ch. pp. 808, 804 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 389.

(i) Allen V. Secltham, 11 C. D.
791 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 742.

(m) OrrenhaUih v. BrindUy,
(1901) 3 Ch. 884; 70 L. J. Ch.
740.

(h) V, heeUun >. llitrrowa, 1?
C. D. p. 49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. S63 :

Ray V. HatMine, (1904) 2 Ch. 17 ;
73 L. J. Ch. 637.

(o) Bay T. HazMint, lupra.

(f) ComptoHv. Richanli, 1 Price,
37 ; U B. B. 6(>2 ; Swanborougk r.
OomOrs, 9 Btng. 808 ; 3 L. J.
(N. S.) C. P. n ; 88 B. B. 680 ;
AUm V. TayU^. 16 C. D. 868 ; 80
L. J. Ch. 178.

(j) Ohvt Uardiuy, 27 L. J.
Ex. 388.

AND BUSINESS PREJ.''3E8.

189

mutual reservation of the right to light will be implied in Cli«p. vi.
favour of all the pardiaaws (r). ****•*•

So also, where different buildings have been erected, form-
ing part of one common scheme or general structure, accord-
ing to a plan, in aeeordanee with which the buildings were to
be erected, of which plan the predecessors in title of the de-
fendant had notice and had approved, and which plan has
also been approved by the party whose approval was necessary
and his surveyor, and a recital to that effect appears in the
deed under which the defendant claims title, he cannot block
up the plaintiff's light, although the conveyance to the defen-
dant was prior in date to the conveyance to the plaintiff, and
did not contain any reservation of the right to light in favour
of the part retained by the grantor and afterwards cwTieyed
by him to the plaintiff («).

The statutory rule as to the acquisiti(m of a legal ri^t to PreKription Act,
the enjoyment of light from long user hpends upon the c. n!
third and fourth sections of the Prescription Act, 2 k 8
Will. IV. 0. 71 (#). The actual mijoynMQt («) of light as an
easement (x), by a dwelling-house, workshop, or other build-
ing iy), for twenty years next before the commencement of
some Boit or action in which the claim ig brought in ques-
tion («), witiMMit admse hitemtptioo, aeqnieaeed in for •

(r) Cimipton v. Richard*, tupra ; need not be of right, ib.
Kii-^ell V. WatU, 25 C. D. p. 673 ; {x) I.e., distinct from the enjoy-

cf. /{ichartU v. Barn, 9 Bnk. tU ; ment of the land itself ; see Har-

23 L. J. Ex. 3. bidge v. iVarwielt, S Exch. Mi; 18

(«) RusKll V. WatU, 10 A. 0. MO. L. J. Ex. 245 ; 77 B. B. m.
602 ; M L. J. Ch. ISS. (y) CclU t. Mem* €md CcUmiml

(() See TnmtM t. Umrckant marm, ntprm ; and see Harrit v.

roylon a>., n Bx«tu 866! » D»Piimm,ZiC. D. 238; 56 L.J.

L. J. Ex. 178 ; Chi* v. A}»k)H, 8 Oh. 344 (structnTe for storin

Jut. N. S. 987 ; Ifyman v. Van dm timber) ; Att.-Oen. t. Queen Anne

Bergh, (1907) 2 Ch. p. 524 ; 76 Oarden Co., (1899) 60 L. T. 769

L. J . Ch. 854 ; (190^ 1 Ck. p. 178 ; (chapel) ; Cliford y. Holt, (1899) 1

77 L. J. Ch. 164. Ch. 698 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 333 (gWK.-

(«) O-oper v. Stniker, 40 C. D. house); Andmwmt. JVwmA, (1906)

21 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 26 ; SmUh v. W. N. 160i
naxlrr, (1900) 3 di. p. 148 ; 08 («) Chop»t r. BmkMk, M a B.

L. J. Ch. 437 ; Collt ». ffomt an-' N. & 4M ; 81 L. J. a P. 818 ;

CWMitW8forM,(1904)A.C.p. 206; <M$ t. Bim. ami OlmM Bhrm,

73 L. J. Ok. 481 Tk» — Jnyirt (ItM) A. 0.|tb IM^ IM{ ML. J.

190

NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

Chap. VI.

Section 8 of
2 A 3 WiU. IV.
c. 71 doM not
bind tb* CnwD.

Nktai* o( right

to light not
altered the
Act.

year (a), is made by those sections to confer an absolute and
indefeasible title (b), unless the enjoyment can be shown to
have been by some consent or agreement (c) expressly made
or given for that purpose by deed or writing (d), whether
the c(»uent or agreement be given or made before or after
the commencement of the statutory period (e).

As regards light claimed under sect. 3, enjoyment as
of right need not be alleged or proved, the right whatever it
may be is acquired by twenty years' use and enjoyment before
an action without interruption and without consent (/).

The general words in sect. 2 of the Prescription Act do not
apply to li^t; and accordingly, the Crown not being named
in sect. 3, no easement of li^t can be acquired against the
Crown under the Act (g).

The Act has not altered the pre-existing law aa to the nature
and extent of the right to light, though it has alt«red the con-
ditions or length of user by which the right may be
acquired (h). Under the Act the owner of the dominant
tenement has to prove actual enjoyment for twenty years
only, before some action in which the claim is brought in
Ch. 484 ; Hytnan v. Van Ken Htrgh, Ch. 442 ; Rtucot y. ffro«»M«W,(1904)

(1907) 2 t'h. 516 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 554 ;

(190S) 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
(a) Sm Onky t. OafdMwr, 4 M. ft'

W.497; 8L. J. (N. 8.) Ex. 102;

61 B. B. 704 ; Preslatul t. ningham,

41 C. D. 268 ; Harbiilyev. W'aruick,

tupra; Sinitit v. Haxler, (1900) 2

Ch. 138 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 437.

(6) The right ia inchoate until it
is eHtablished in legal proceeding* :
Hj/man v. Kan den Btrgh, tupra.

(e) TheoaiiMBtoragtMBiento«n
be by taiiMtt in ocoup«tion <rf the
domioant tenement : Hymmt t.
Van den Btrgh, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 179 ;
77 L. J. Ch. 184.

(</) See 'J'riiecutt v. Merchant
Taylort <'o., ttipra ; Tajiliiiy v.
Jonei, 11 U. L. C. 290 ; 34 L. J.
C. P. 342; Bewley v. Mkinson. 13
C. D. 283; 49 L. J. Ch. 6 ; Atuton
T. JtM, (1908) 1 Cb. 406 ; 71 L. J.

89 L. T. 436; JTymoii T. Vmnhn
Btrgh, Mpra.
(e) Hyman r. Vam dtH AiyA,

(1907) 2 Ch. p. 630; affinnad.

(1908) 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
(/) Tniteoit V. Merchant Taylort

Co., 11 Ex. 855; 25 L. J. Kx. 173;
Frrwen v. I'hiltipt, 11 G. B. N. S.
449; 30 L. J. C. P. ^61); ColUy.
Home and Colonial Store*, '1904)
A. C. p. 206; 73 L. J. Oh. 484;
Fmr T. Mersm, (1806) 3 C& p.
417 ; 79 L. J. Cb. 787 ; afflrmed,
tub nam. Morgan t. #W, (1907)
A. C. 426 ; 76 L. J. 660.

(j) Perry v. Eama, (1891) 1 Ch.
658 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 345 ; U'heaton v.
MapU, (1893) 3 Ch. 48 ; 6;i L. J.
Ch. 963.

(A) Cvlli ». i/t-me and Cdoaial
Storu, (1904) A. 0. pp. 198, 19* ;

AND BUSINESS FBEIOSES.

m

question, and is not ccmcerned with questions of right and Owp. vi.

of the title to the servient tenement, but the Act has given to '*^''

the owner of the servient tenement two defences: (i.) the
agreement mentioned in sect. 3; and (ii.) the interruption
mentioned in sect. 4. In cases in which eithw oi tiieM
offences is applicable, the plaintiff cannot evade the Act by
setting up any mode of claim other than that conferred on
him by the Act. A plaintiff eouid not titerefore, by pleading
lost grant instead of the Act, evade the defences given by
sects. 3 and 4. But where there is no express defence pro-
vided by the Act for the servient tenement, the right may still
be claimed on any ground available before the Act (»}.

Under the Act the actual enjoyment of light for the period Till aetinaoM-
of twenty years without interruption confers only an inchoate S^^Jiu!**^
title, no absolute or indefeasible ri^t can be aeqaired till
the claim to the right is brought in question in some action
or suit. It is not, therefore, every consecutive period of Thapwiodaf
twenty years that satisfies the Act, it must be a period inune- '**^
diately previous to and terminating in some action or anit
in which the right shall be brought into question (A;).

The evidence to sustain a prescription at common law need ETidno*.
not come down to uty defined pwiod (I) ; bat in eaaea o(»ning
within the Act the enjoyment must be up to the commence-
ment of some action in which the particular claim has been
brought into question (m).

Interruption of the enjoyment will not prevent the right An "iniarrop.
fnmi being acquired under the statute, unless the interruption *^
has been submitted to for (me year after the party interrupted
shall have had notice thereof (n). The term " interraptioD "

(») CvlU T. Hmm and CcbmkU (m) CdU* v. H<me and Colonial
Storm, (1904) A. 0. pp. 190, 191 ; Stom, (190*) A. C. pp. 189, 190 ;
73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; Hyman v. Van 73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; fhjmin v. Van
(fcn BfrjA, (1908) ICh. pp. 176-178; rfen Ar^A, (1907) 2 Ch. p. S25 ; 76
77 L. J. Ch. 184. L. J. Ch. fi64 ; (1908) 1 Ch. pp.

{k) Hyman v. Van lUn Benjl 171,173; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.
(1908) I Oil, p. 178 ; 77 L. J. C (n) 2 & 3 WiU. IV. c. 71. s. 4 ;
lo*- '"''y V. Qardiner, 4 M. ft W. p,

(0 I'Mper V. Huhbuck, 12 t. 497 ; 8 L J. (N. 8.) Bx, 102 ; ft
K. S. lae ; 31 L. J. C. P. 323. See B. S. 704 ; SorM^* WmwiA,
Eftmn V. Km dm Btrfk, (1901) «&nk PbM7i Ui:i./.lx.»M;
I cat p. 178 ; 77 Ii. J. Ok IH. 77 B. B. 7iS ; BMm t. Ami iff

193

NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

cb*p- VI. in the statute refers to an actual obstnietioa, and not to a

mere discontitiuai..ca of u<»er (o). The twenty years' enjoy-
ment which gi\es an nhsolute right to the access of light need
not be an enjojiuent, in fact " without interruption " for the
period mentimed, but an rajoyment witiioat such interrup-
tion as is contemplated by the Rtatute (p). An interruption
accordingly after an enjoyment of nineteen years, and the
fraction of a year, is not such an interruption as will prevent
the right from becoming absolute at the end of the twentieth
year (q). But an action for an injunction to restrain an inter-
ference with the light cannot be brought until after the twenty
years have expired (r).

" Enjoyment " To acquire a right to the access of light by actual enjoyment

of light within . . , . , • , . ^ ■ . ■ ■

the Act. under the Act, it is not necessary that the house should be
occupied (•), or that it should be fit foi- immediate occupa-
tion during the statutory period (t). The 'enjoyment" of
the light, within the meaning of the Act, commences as soon
as the exterior walls of the building with the spaces for the
windows are completed, and the building roofed in, although
the window sashes and glass may not be put in and the interior
may not be finished until some time afterwards (u).

It is necessary, however, that the light should have readied
the house by the same definite channel for the aiatotm^

&I(M, 19 C. D. M2 ; 61 L. J. Ol 18 L. J. Ex. M< ; n R. B. 72A ;

M2 ; Predand t. Bingham, 41 C. D. BridtwtU EatpikU t. IVard, 63 L. J.

268 ; 60 L. T. 433. Q. B. 270 ; (1892) W. N. 194-6 ;

(o) Hmitli V. floa-ter, (1900) 2 Ch. Lord Battertea v. < 'rnnmittiimtrt of

138, 143 ; 69 li. J. Ch. 437 ; Hynuin Bew^s, (1895) 2 ( h. 708 ; 62 L. J.

V. Van den Iteryh, (1907) 2 Ch. p. Ch. 81 : Hyman v. Van den llergh,

627 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 664. (1907) 2 Ch. 516 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 664 ;

(p) «io«T T. Coltman, L. B. 10 (1908) 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 164.

0. P. 108 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 66 ; (•) CM, v. Uvm mmd CbUmM

Hym» v. Fm dm Btrgh, (1907) atam, (1904) A. C. p. 906 ; 73 L. J.

9 Oh. p. 894 ; 76Ii. J. SM. Ch. 484; Aymm v. Vanden Bergh,

(?) Flight V. Thoniai, 8 CI. ft Fin. (1908) 1 Ch. p. 178 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 154.

231 ; 52 E. R. 468, 478. See Eaton (<) Cmirlsuld v. Ley!,, L. li. 4 Ex.

y.Swanieii Watervrorkt Co., 11(1. Ti, 126; 38 L. J. Ex. 45; ('olli$ y.

274; 20 L. J. Q. B. p. 484; 86 La«»Aer, (1894) 3 Ch. 659 ; 63 L.J.

E. E. 455, Lord Campbell. Ch. 861 ; Smith v. Baxter, (1900) 2

(r) Carr v. f'cttfr, 3 Q. B. 581 ; Ch. p. 143; 69 L. J. Ch.437 ; Ctii*

11 L. J. a B. 284 ; 61 B. B. 321 ; v. Hume and CuUmial Slam, t

EmUigtw. ronMck, SExdi. M7 ; (») CWm v. Xm«*«r, «yM.~

198

CUp. VI.
8c«I.S.

AND BUSINESS PREMISES.

period (x), so that the ligbt claimed is the same light that has
been mjoyed tot the twmty years, although the apertures

for the access of light may have been altered (y).

The right to light, if acquired against a lessee, binds the Right to u^t
inheritance («). Where two adjoining tenements are occu- JJ^iiT^jJJJdU
pied by different lessees under a coramOD ludlord, tiie ri^t iLiMritMo*.
to light may be acquired by the lessee of one tenement as
against the other tenement, and the -ight so acquired enures
in favour of the lessee of the dcnninant tenement and of his
successors not only as against the adjoining lessee, but hIso
as against the common landlord and succeeding owners of ae
servient tenement (a). A reversioner has, it seems, no meaojs
of preventing the right being acquired against him, unless he
can prevail on his lessee to interrupt the enjoyment, or get
an acknowledgment in rrriting that the enjoyment is by con-
sent (6).

There is nothing in the Act that prevents a bargain being Agnemtnt m
made with respect to windows. An agreement with regard *°
to the windows of a house for valuable consideration is en-
forceable in equity in the same way, and under flie saow
conditions, as any other agreement with respect to real jbo-
perty (c).

By the custom of London, a building might have been Owto. of

raised upon the old foundations to any height, although '
ancient windows or lights in the next house were obstructed,
if there was no agreaneat resfaietive of the right (d). But

{x) Harritr. De Pinna, MO.D. K.B.^4S.44;rrL.jr. K.B.

238 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 344.

[y] Andrew v. Waite, (1907) 2
Ch. p. 610 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 676.

(t) Simptr V. Foley, 3 J. & H.
6M ; FrtwtH r. Philip U 0. B.
N. a 449; J. a F. 3fl6:

Lai^/num v. Onv, 6 Ch. 767 ; 19
W. B. 863 ; ife6*on t. Edward*,
{im) 2 Ch. 146 ; 62 L. J. Ch.
378 ; Fear v. Morgan, (1906) 2 Ch.
406 ; 7a L. J. Ch. 787 ; afflmed,
sub mm, Moryan v. Frar, (19n7^
A. C. 424; 76 L. J. Ch. 660;
SiehardKM r. Graham, (1006) 1

U.

27.

(a) Fear v. Morgan, (1908) 3 Cfc.
406 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 7P7 ; affirmed.
*ttb nam. Morgan v. Fear, (1907)
A. C. 425: 76L.J.Ch. 660.

(i) FrewtH T. Phittipt, 1 1 C. B.
N. S. 449 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 356 ;
MUchM V. Cautria, 37 C. D. 56 :
67 L. J. Ch. 72.

(f) BewUy V. Atkinson, 13 C. D.
p. 300 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 6; and w*
MeManua v. Crate, 36 C. D. 681;
66 L. J. Ch. 662.

(4) Gam. D%.. Londoa, No.

18

194

NUISANCE TO DWELLmO-HOUSES

<*•*.▼!• if a title to light is shown under tiie Act, an obstroetkn
— oumot be joBtifled by the custom of Lendon, sect. 8 of tiw
Preawiption Act containing the words " any local OMga «
eutton to the contrary notwithstanding " (e).

The right to tiie eDjoyment of l^t by flne tMnoat mm
another tenement becomes, like other easements, extinguished
upon unity of seisin for an estate in fee simple and posses-
sion of both tenements in the same person (/), b«t liw tif^
is not eztingoished by more wtity of Bmsio for m sstato in
fee simple without unity of possession. Thus, whwe a tene-
ment with the right to light over an adjoining tenement,
was demised to the i^intit for a term of years, and (teriag
the continuance of the term the defendant obstructed the
access of light and acquired the fee simple of the dominant
tenement, it was held that the easement of light was not
extingaished by the unity of seisin (g). Where there is unity
of ownership of the dominant and servient tenements for
different estates (h), and where there is merely unity of
pomemion without unity of seisin (>)> the easement is sus-
pended ae long as the unity of poesessirai ewtinues, and
revires again upon the severance of the pcMssession.

The privilege of receiving light through ancient windows
may be lost through abandonment. The question whether
the right has been abandoned is one of intention, to be
gathered from all the circumstances of the case. Mere non-
user of the right is not an abandonment (;*).

Winttaiilei/ v. Lee, 2 Sw. 333, 339 ; 656.

Perrvv-JJamfJ, (1891) 1 Ch. p. 66"; (i) Ladyman v. Orare, 6 Ch.

60 L. J. Ch. 348. 763 ; 19 W. R. 863.

(e) See Tnueolt t. Merchant (;') Moore t. Bawion, 3 B. ft C.

Taglort Co., 11 Exdt. 8U; ML. J. 832 ; 3 L. J. E. B. 32 ; 37 B. S.

Ex. 173 ; Salten v. Joj/, 3 a B. 376 ; BtM r. flap*. 31 C. D. SM,

109 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 173 : 61 B. E. 876 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 914. See Jftrf-

147 ; Cooper v. Httbhttk, 12 C. B. laud Railway Co. v. Qrihhk, (1896)

N. S. 466 ; 31 L. J. C. P. .123 ; 2 Ch. pp. 827, 831 ; 64 L. J. Ch.

Perry y. Eames, (1891) 1 Cb. 668 ; 826; Smith v. Baxter, (1900) 2 Ch.

60 L. J. Ch. 348. p. 142 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 437 ; Coi';<o-

(/) Rirhar^lumy. nraham,{imfi) v. Milburn, (1908) 82 S. J. 316

I K. li. 39 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 27. (H. L.) ; Hanhury v. LUmfrteUa

(9) See note (/). mpra. Urban Council, (1911) 9 L. O. B.

(A) Sin^ V. Ftl^ 2 J. * H. pp. S64,a«S(W«ter).

Cfc4p. VI.

AND BUSINESS PREMISES.

The mere alteration of a building containing ancient lights
without eridence of intention to abandon does not imply an

abandonment of the statutory right to the access and use of ^^J^^
light to or for any building which may be substituted for the "bSkS.^
original building; the intention to abandon the right must be
clearly established by evidence (k). Where a building idhile
it existed had the right to have its ancient lights un-
obstructed and the building is taken down, the right is not
abandoned but is only in abeysnee. Until the right is aban-
doned, it is as much in existence after the building is pulled
down as it was before, and is as much in the possession of the
owner of the legkl right as ever, even although his actual en-
joyment of it may be suspended. There is nothing to prevent
him from applying to the Court for an injunction to restrain
an erection which would interfere with the easement of ancient
lights where the Court is satisfied that he is about to restore
the building with its ancient lights (I).

An owner of ancient lights who alters or rebuilds his pre- Altantioxrf
mises does not by altering the plane and siie of his windows "^"^
lose his right to the amount of light which was wont to pass
through the old windows and to which he was entitled (m). If
he enlarges the windows, he still has the same right to that
amount of light which, for the period of twenty years before
the action, has passed through so much of the old windows as
is left undisturbed; nor is the right lost by reason of the fact
that only part of the old window is ineloded in the new, or that
the old window has been added to, either vertically or laterally,
by a new window. No alteration in the plane of the windows'
of the d(»ninant tenement will destroy the right, so long as the
owner of the dominant tenement em show that he is using
through the new apertures the same, or a substantial part of
the same, li^t which passed through tl.c old apertures into

(le) Grttnirood v. Horntey, 33
C. IX 471 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 917 ; Sad
see Ihnttk v. BaxUr, tupra.

{I) Eccle»ui$tieal Commiuiimeri v.
Kino, H C. D. pp. 218, 218 ; 40
L. J. Ch. 529.

(m) y«tioMaPr»inekdakm(^

V. Prudential Inturantt Co., 6 C. D.
747 : 46 L. J. Ch. 871 ; Smmm
Ptndtr, 27 C. D. p. 46 ; SmUk
fiaj*r.(I800)8ClLmt « L. J.
Ch- 437 ; Andrtvi Waite, (1907)
S pp. 609, 610 ; 76 L. J. Ch.

l»-3

196

NUISANCE TO DWBLLING-HOUSBB

Chap. Tl. the old buildings (n). The question in the case of an altera-
■ tkm of a building is tuA whether the new windows are in the

same verticnl plane, and to what extent has their position in
the line of incidence of the light been altered, but whether the
light claimed is sobetantially the same li^^t that has been
enjoyed throughout the period of twenty yeai s ; the real test
in these cases is identity of light, and not identity of aperture
or entrance for the light (o) . An owner who, on the sitaratioa
of buildings or the rebuilding of his premises, comes to the
Court for the protection of ancient lights, must have evidence
to show that some part of the old windows coincided with
Aluratioa P*'* ®' **** windows (p). The dominant owner

of baUdtaf. may lose his right to relief, even where there is no substantial
alteroticm of his building, if he has by his alterations so
confused the evidence that he cannot prove the identitj of the
light (g).

The fact that the owner of the dominant tenement has to
some extent contributed to the diminution of his ancient
lights by the altaaticms in his building will not in itself pre-
clude him from obtaining an injunction against a person
who illegally obstructs what remains of his ancient lights (r).
Bat whwe, before the rebuilding of the dominant tmemient
by the plaintiff, a partial obatruction by the owner of the
servient tenement of the plaintiff's ancient lights would not
have amounted to an actionable nuisance, such an obstruction,
even though it may completely block out the remnant of light
left aft«r the rebuilding, will not be an actionable wrong (s).
Fomotoni«r. '^^^ order, when expressed in general terms, restrains the
defendant from mrecUng any boilding " ao as to eeoae »

(n) 8eM Pape, 31 C. D. 654 ; 38 L. J. Cb. 289. See Ankwtri v.

M L. J. Cb. 914; Andreum v. OemuiUg, (1906) 2 Ch. M4 ; 7»

Waitt. tupra. L. J. CL 804 ; (1907) 1 Oh. p.

(o) AndrewtY. Waite, lupru. 683 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 402; Andrew$

(p) Foirleri v. Il'o/ter, 61 L. J. v. Waite, (1907) 2 Ch. p. 610 ; 7«

Ch. 443; (1881) W. N. 77; Pen- L. J. Ch. 676.

darresY. Afuiiro, (1892) 1 Ch. 611 ; '>) Ankerion v. Connelly, (1906)

61 L. J. Ch. 494. 2 Ch. 644 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 804 ;

(g) Scott V. Pape, 31 C. D. d.i4 ; (1907) 1 Ch. 678; 76 L. J. Ch.

ML. J. Ch. 914. 403.

(r) ata^M V. Burn. 5 Ch. 163 ;

AND BUSINESS PREMISES. 197

nuisance or illegal obstruction" to the plaintiff's ancient cii«p.vi.
lights. The order also, after providing for the plaintiff's
costs of the action up to and tnolading the hearing, may give
liberty to the plaintiff to apply within a fixed time, after receiv-
ing notice of the completion of the defendant's building, for
further relief by way of mandatory injanetion or damages (t).

If the evidence does not enable the Court to come to a satis- BaferaMte
factory conclusion on a particular point, the Court will, with ^J^^H
the view of fredng both parties from inecmvenienee so tiiat m*wMMk
the one may kuow jweviously what he may safely do and the
other what he may safely object to, give liberty to the parties
on granting the injunction to apply in chambers with respect
to the erection of buildings (u). So, alao, the Court may
make a declaration of the plaintiff's right in lieu of granting
an injunction, the defwidant undertaking to give the plaintiff
reasonable notioo of his int«iti<m to build aaxd to produce to
the plaintiff upon request his building plans («).

Windows which have the privilege of receiving light have Vmrntt^wk.
also the |mrilflg« of receiving air, so that a person may not
obstruct the passage of air to the windows of his neighbour to
such an extent as to cause a nuisance (y). But it is only in
very rare and special cases, involving danger to health, or at
least something very nearly approaching (0 it, that the Court
would be justified in interfering on the ground of diminution
of uir (a). There may, however, be circumataaces in the
case such as to justify the Court in holding that a grant of a

(0 See Colli \. H< n.eand Vidimi„l H. & M. 050; Tote y /oei 1 Oi,

.S/«r«, (1904) A. C. p. 194; 73 388; 3d L. J. Ch. 639; aLd see

L. J. Ch. 484 ; Andertcn v. Ffnei*, 8mUk v. Baxttr, (1900) 2 Ch. 138 •

(1906) W. N. 180: Uiggin, v. 69 L. J. Ch. 437 ; Att-Gen y
BetU, (1908) 9 Ch. p. 218; 74 SUtfor>Uhirt Oouuty Council, tuj^a.
L. J. Ch. 621 ; Andrews v. Wait', , (x) SmUli y. BarUr, lupra

(1907) 2 Ch. p. 510 ; 76 L. J. Ch. (y) Aldred-, c;,e, 9 Co. Hep. o8. «.
6<6. And OH to mandatory orders See Cable v. Bryant, (1908) ! Ch.
be;u.' .xrtiiin and definite in their pp. 263, 264 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 78.
teru, «e Jackum v. Normandy {x) City of Londm BmMrm Co.

Uruk < a., (1899) 1 Ch. 438; 68 T. r«niMin<. 9 Ch. p. iSl; 4SL. J

L. J. Ch. 407 ; Att-Oen. v. Staford- Ch. 4W,^ Lari SdboiM ; AHfar

'hire Countjf Vouneit, (190ft) 1 Ch. T. Bowm; 44 L. J. Ch. «M ;Mi»»

p.342 ; 74L. J.Ck.p. IM. V. SWw, M L. T. »fl8.
(«) atdm V. Oi^ OJkm CU, 8

196 NUISANCE TO DWELLIN0-H0U8EB

Clup. VI. right to the free passage of air to the house of a neighbour

may be implied (a). So slao where the anintemipted flow

of uir throu^ a definite apprture or channel over a neigh-
Ijour's land has been enjoyed for a sufficient period, a
right by way of easement may be acquired (6). But in the
absence of actual contract a claim by way of easement to have
the general current of air coming from a neighbour's land
kept uninterrupted cannot be supported either at comm<m law
or under the statute (c). The access of air accordingly to the
chimney of a building cannot as ugainst the occupier of neigh-
bouring land be claimed either as a natural right of property
or as an easemmt by iMresoriptioa frmn the time of legal
memory or by a lost grant or under the Prescription Act ((/).
So also the right of passage of undefined air for the purpose of
serving a windmill (e) or drying timber (/) cannot be claimed
by prescription. Where, however, a lease was granted in
order that the land demised might be used for the purpose of
carrying on the business of a timber merchant, and the lessee
eorenuited to carry on such business accordingly, it was held
that the lessor was not entitled to build upon the adjoininig
property so as to interrupt the access of air to sheds upon the
demised property used for drying timber, so as to interfere
with the carrying cm of the business in tiie ocdinairj
course (g).

(a) Bau T. Ortgory, 25 Q. B. D. (li) Bryant v. Leftcer, 4 C. P. D.
481 ; 59 L. J. (1. B. 571 ; .IW»« v. 172 ; 48 L. J. Q. U. 3«0; />ut;»« v.
Latimer rlark, (1894) 2 t'h. 437 ; Tviru Frnptrtirt Corporatioii , {IVXTA)
63 Ij. J. Ch. m\ ; ruble v. Bri/ant, 1 Ch. p. 804 ; 72 L. J. C'h. 389 ; but
(lims) 1 Ch. pp. 263,264 ; 77 L. J. see Cable v. Bryant, (1908) 1 C'h.
Ch. 78. p. 263 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 78.

(i) CabU V. Bryant, tupra; and (e) WM v. Bird, 13 C. B. N. S.
tee Browne t. Fhtwtr, (1911) 1 Ck. 841 ; 31 L. J. 0. P. 33» ; Dawii t.
p. 22S : 80 L. J. Clk. 181. Town Froptrtit CbrpofoMew, •Hpra.

(f) HarHi v. Dt Pinna, 33 C. D. (/) Harriiy. Dt Pinna, 33 C. D.
23H ; 56 L. J. Ch. 344 ; Chaitey v. 238 ; 4« L. J. Ch. 344.
AcklaiKl, { 1 K95) 2 Ch. 389 ; 64 L. J. (y) Aldin r. Latimer Clark; (1894)
Q. B. 523; ;iM97) A. C. 155; 66 2 Ch. 437 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 601; see
L. J. Q. B. jltt (U. L.); Darii v. Cable v. Bryant, (1908) 1 Ch. pp.
Tnwn PrnMHit* ' '(,rw.r./fum. (1903) 263. 264 : 77 L. J. Ch. 78 ; Brotme
1 Ch. pp. 804, tMi'. ; 72 L. J. Ch. v. Ftoutr, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 226; 80
389; Browner. Floiitr, {1911) I Ch. L. J. Ch. 181 ; andsee reftftv. Caee,
p. 226; 80 L. J. Ch. 181. (1900) I Ch. 642 ; 69 L. J. Ch. Stt.

AND BU8INB88 PRElOSEa

The mjoyment of pure and wholesome air is s right to Omf.n.
which the owners of land unci the inmutos of a dwelling-houM *******

are of common right entitled. Any act which pollutes or cor-
rupts the air is, strictly speaking, a nuisance (h); but, inas-
much as the business of life in cities and populous nei^-
hourhoods renders it impossible that the air should retain its
natural state of purity, the law does not regard trifling incon-
reniencee. In order to constitute an actionable nuisance, the
pollution of the air must be of so sonsihle a nature as to
diminish materially the value or interfere materia 'ly with the
comfort and enjoyment of property which a reasonable man is
entitled to expect, regard, however, being always had to the
situation and mode of occupation of the properly injuriously
affected (i). That which is a sensible and real inconvenience
to im>perty in one phue, and occupied in one way, will be none
to property situate in another place or occupied in another
way. If a man lives in a town, he must of necessity submit
himself to the consequences of the obligations of trade which
may be carried on in his immediate locality, and are necessary
for the purposes of commerce and for the benefit of the inhabi-
tants of the town and the public at large [k). iiut the law re-
quires that business be carried tm in a reasonable and i«oper
manner, and so as not to cause unnecessary inconvenience.
A man, who by an act on his own land causes so much annoy-
ance to another in tiie eajoynmit of a nm|^b(Hiring tenement

and the oominaats on tUs daotsioii AInm amd Aljtart, (1906) 1 Ch.

in Davis v. Tovm PrtpmHm Cor- pp. 2.37, 245, Hfflrmed, mb Mm.

fMinttion, tupra. Poltne and Aljieri v. Rim/ ,ier,

[h] Aldrtd't case, 9 Co. R. 58 b. (1907) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. i 5 ;

(«) Tipping v. St. HeUn'i Smelt- Adiinu v. UrteU, (1913) 1 Ch. :ti9 ;

ing Co.. 4 H. & S. 608 ; St. Helen'* 82 L. J. Ch. 157.
SmtHing Vo. v. Tipping, 1 1 11. L. C. (i) See Colli v. Honu md CUomoI

642 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 66; Suhin v. Store; (1904) A. O.pulM; 73 L. J.

North BfttHCtptlh Coal Co., 9 Ch. Ch. 484 ; JTm* t. JaUg, (1S0»)

7<»:44L.J.Gh.l49:aBdw«a)l/« 1 (%. pp. 489, 490 ; 74 L. J. Ch.

v. iSoiM md CWomM MofWb (1904) 174; Btuhmer v. Affteri it Co.,

A. C. p. 188 ; 75 L. J. Oh. 484 ; (1906) 1 Ch. 234 ; 75 L. J. Ch.

Kine V. Jolly, (1905) 1 Ch. pp. 489, 79 ; affirmed, tub nam. I'vlme v.

VM , 74 Li. J. Ch. 174; affirmed, Rmkmer, (1907) A. U. p. 123; 76

tuh u.m. Jolly v. Kine, (1907) A. C. L. JT. Ck. 8W.
1 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 1 ; Ruthmer t.

200

NUISANCE TO DWELUNO-HOUSBS

Otep. TI.

SMi.S.

as to unoimt to a naiaane«, cannot b« hawrd to say that the
. place wbare the act was dO;i<- was u proper and convenient one
for the purpose (/), and that crerj aQ(t«»rour haa been made

tu abalt' the nuisuuce (m).

Whether or not the poUution of air ia aubataatial •noagh

to iuduco the ' li t to exercise its protective jurisdiction is a
qutHtion whicli must depend on the particular circumstances
of the case. It ia imponibie to find any precise standard by
which to determine the question; in eadi case it is a queutioo
of degree (n). The Court m&y appoint a special referee to
inspect and report as to the extent of the nuisance (o). lu
jonctiona will be granted, on a pro{>er case being made out, to
rcstniiii persons from burning bricks (p), or discharging
smoke (q), or other noxious or offensive vapours, odours, or
gases (r). Mora smoke or offensive odcMur akme, onaeemn-

(/) Tippiiis *• Si. Hdm't SmtU-
ing Co., 4 B. ft 8. 608, ttlA ; Am-
ford T. TttTMftg, S B. ft 8. «2; 31
L. J. a. B. 286; NtinhartU v.

Mentn»H, Ai V D. CSS ; 88 L. J.
( h. 787; All. ■(,>•'. V. (1901 )
1 (.'h. 205 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 148.

(»i) AU.-den. V. I'lymoiith t'inli
Giuim, ('. ., (1912) 7« J. P. 19;
Ailanu V. I'mtll, (1913) 1 Ch. •
p. 272 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 1A7.

(n) C'dk T. Uom and Cobmitl
mont, (19M) A. C. p. 1«S; 73
L. J. Ch. 484 ; /Wmm and Af/hri
V. Ri,th:n.r, (1907) A. C. p. 133; 76
L. J. Ch. 365.

(u) litodrr V. S„ilhtril. 2 C. D.
p. (194 ; 45 h. 3. ( h. 414.

{p) llVier V. StI/e, 4 Do G. &
8. 325, on appeal, 20 L. J. Ch.
433 ; Hantfurd v. Turnir, 31 L. J.
Q. B. 286 ; Btardmort v. TrtuduitU,
3 Qifl. 683; oompromised on ap-
peal, ib. 701; 31 L. J. Ch. 892;
Cleevt V. Mahany, 26 J. P. 819;
Btrrtham v. /fall, (1870) W. N. S7 ;
Vrairj'ord v. Haratea, etc., Sttam
Co., (187B) W. N. 1«: 4S L. J.
Ch. 432.

[q) atmften r. BiiMk, • Sim. 273 ;

7 L. J. Ok MO; Onmp^. UmUrt,

8 £^ 409; Ma^ntrd t. Sithardt,

1 Set. 59»; SmUh-v. Midland Rail.
»ca.V Co.. 26 W. B. 10 ; (lb77) W. N.
200.

(r) ISrti- ii nt v. ' njn-riitl (iiit-
li-jM Co.. : iJe (i. \f. & a. 436; 7
li. L. C. 600 ; 20 I.. >I. Ch. 27«;
Tip/ling v. St. Helett - ..ineltiiiy Co.,
1 Ch. 66 (oojq^ wcffks} ; BarUtw
T. Aitfay. (1S71) W. N. M (chnd-
osl «o^} ; Caab v. Forhm, i Bq.
166; 37 L. 3. Ch. 178 (obemioal
worku) ; Sai-ile v. Kilntr, 26 1,. T.
277 (glass works) ; Salrin v. Kvrth
Jiranrei>tth Coal Co., 9 Ch. 705 ; 44
L. J. Ch. 149 (coke ovens) ; Cm-
frtrilU V. Johiinun, 10 Ch. 680 ; 44
L. J. Ch. 752 (cement works); Att.-
Utn. V. Fraitcit, 1 Set 696 (ewneat
work*); Kniykt v. Oardnt, 10
L. T. 673 (manure WMks) ; (hdUtk
y. TrtmkU, 20 W. B. 368 ; Bigikf
T. Dickin*on, 26 W. B. 89 (chemicsl
works) ; ShUtt Iron Co. v. Inglii,
7 A. C. 515 ; Ficmiu^- t. tiiiii,p, l i
A. C. 691 (caleiuing) ; Ikrt v.
Pteorini, 31 S. J. 726 (kitehai

AND BUUNE88 FBBMISES.

in

OUp- VI.

■Mt.&

panied by noxioas rapoars, ia s •ufficient ground for ttie
intorft'i ciRO of the Court («). Th« fftot that • BUU) vuf bsT*

sold lund with u full knowledge tiiat cortuin workH were ulx)ut
to he erected thereon, does not disentitle him or thoue claiming
UDdmr him to emnplain <rf may noisuiM which Um works may

cause (/).

A limekiln (u),ttdye houiie (j;;, u tun-pit, u glass house (j^), TMlMaMi-
a smeHrag-hooBe, a tallow-furnace (z), a soap-boilery (o), a
huildiiig for boiling whulo hiuhhcr (b), or for I -.iing h<»w-
fleHh for dogs (<•), a tallow chandler's 8hop(rf), fat melting
works (e), a varnish maker's shop (/), a slaughtei house (g),
a brew-hotiM (*), and a hog-sty« (0, hare all bean held to
be nuisances at common law (k). But a hrow house (l) or a

ixlours) : lla/iier v. l.im-loii Tinm.
ir<i,/a (',.., (18»3) 2Ch. 588; (i.'l 1.. J.
Ch. iO (stablM) ; AUMitn. 7W-
Hntllfg, (IM?) 1 Ck. aaO; «8 L. J.
Ch. 37A (raioM); Aoft>n«(m v
LoHdoH OtHtnU Omuibiu Co., [Itim)
26 T. L. B. 2:i3 (motor bus fumes^ ;
■ Itt.-Otn. V. I'h/mouth Fiih (luano
^1912) 70 J. r. lU.

[>) I -II n/' V. Lamlitrt, 3 !
409 (f ., t.,i_v cliimney); ^/iiWi,,,
r ,,„/'lt. 20 \V. R. 3d«; Ihnha,
V. //'.//. .0) W. N. »7 ; 22 L. T.
116. SiSteaimr.armtNaikmm
SaUaag Cto., 4 De O. J. * a 311 ;
33 L. J. Ch. 3M ; 8andtrt-Cuirk v.
ffroKi-fHor MoHtiuiu fo., (1900) 2
Cli. A'l) (heut anil ,ull) (cookiiij^
raiiKe): AH. (I,,!, v. Ktymtr Brick
(17 J. P. 434 (odours
from h(ni)*e refuse); AH.-dtn. y.
I'liiDMiith [■'till (iuanii Co., (1912)
70 J. l>. 19; AikuHty, TrM^i, (1913)
1 Ch. 260 ; 82 L. J. Cli. 1*7 (MmI
fish shop).

(<) Txpping V. St. Htltn'* amdt-
iny ('v., 1 Ch. 06.

(«) Sec AldrrcTtrcue, 9 Co. B. 58 b.

(r) lb.

u''/ >*^."ifo V. I'oiitii, Paiui. Ooy.
(j) Miirley v. Pragnrll, Cro. Car.
»U>; 1 fiuU. Ab. 88. Sm, aa to

candle- uakiug being a niiitaiine,
.'rmot V. ArMM, 1 IIm^ 299, mai
PnblioHtrith Aet, 1876. a. 112 :
aaaandad by T Mw. 7, c. 43, ». 61.

(a) A V, Pierce, Show. 327. See
Fublio Health Act, 1875, ». 112.

(t) HiTuiitland Whc.lr r„. v.
rr../<.r, 8 Wilson i Shaw (Sc.), 649.

("•) (frindley \. Bex , 3 H. * C.
669; ;14 J, J. Ex. 1:16.

(rf) yWiM V. IJuU, 4 Bing. K ■
183; 7 L. J. (N. &) C. P. lase; ♦»
B. B. 807. SaePiddie HMllh « < .
1876, a. U2.

(«) T. tWe, (1901 J

Ch. 206 : 70 T,. J. Ch. 148. .V >
Public Health Act, 1873, s. 112.

(/) li. V. Nift, 9 Omt. * P. 4M:
31 H E. 685.

(</) H. V. CroM, 2 Car. & P.
31 R. B. 684. See liapUy r. Bmmt,
(1893) 10 T. L. B. 174.

(A) Jtmm T. iW^ HiMmi, tM.

(i) Alfhtfe cat, 9 Co. B. 68 k
A»i to nuiaacce caused by amell
fp>m pig stye, see Att.-Oen. v.
S'v.i.rf, (1907) 5 L. O. Beport^ 99.

(k) Soe ifcr v. White, 1 Burr. 333.

(0 Att..ihi,. V. Cleaver, 18 V«fc
iio; i» B. B. lAtf, B.; UwtMi
.S.imw, 1 Sim. * St. i8: 1 Ii. jr.
(0. S.) Ck 96.

i

NUISANCE TO DWELLINO-BOUSES

Chap. VI.
i^t. 2.

No tiiue will
Ivgalise % public
naiwae*.

fried fish shop (m) are not necessarily nuisances^ nor is a hos-
pital for infectious diseases (n) (having regard *o the present
state of science (o)). A hospital, however, for getting to-
gether people suffering friMn infectious diseMes will be a
nuisance, if it endanger the public health by communicating
disease, or if injury is caused thereby to the rights of owners
of Uie adjoining property (p) . But the Court wili not restrain
by injunctim the erection of a hospital for persons suffering
from small-pox merely on the ground of apprehension of
danger. The Court must be satisfied that there is a well-
grounded apprehension of danger, or at least that tiie danger
is appreciable (g). A small-pox hospital is not a noxious or
offensive business within sect. 112 of the Public Health Act,
1875 (r).

The right to carry on an offensive trade so as to corrupt
and pollute the air may be acquired against an individual by
prescription or presumption of lost grant, but no length of

(m) See --l.Ziitn* v. Crull, (1913)
1 Ch. 269 : 82 L. J. Ch. 157 (in-
junctiun gni' id.) ; Braintree Local
BaarH t. Bogtim, (1886) A3 L. T.
99, not noxious boriiMM within
sect. 112, Public Heidth Act, 1875;
Duke of Deifnuhire v. Brookshaw,
(1899) 81 L. T. 83 (breach jf
covenant against offensive trade) ;
KrrinyUm v. lUrt, (1911) 105 L. T.
373 (breach of covenant against
" annoyance or inconvenience ").

{«) Bavtm V. Baker, Amb. 188 ;
AU.-aen. T. Ouiliford Hiupital
Board, 13 T. L. B. 64 ; Bvrrop v.
0$iett CorponOion, 14T. L. B. 908;
Att.-(irn. v. CorjioratioH of Man-
ekattr, (1893) 2 Ch. 87 : ti2 L. J.
Ch. 459: AU.-Oen. v. Corjnralion
of .\, tiiii<i/,<im, (19m) 1 Ch. 673;
73 L. J. Ch. 612: An.-Ur,i. V.
Bathminet and Pemhnike Jh>3)iiUtl
Board, (1904) 1 Ir. B. 161.

(o) Att.-Otit. V. CoTfcratioit </
Manchmttr, Att.-0*n. V. Corporation
of Nattinyham, Att.-Oat. r. Baih-

miiien, etr., UotjiiUil UiHinl. •"j'Ta.

(p) MrtropoliUiii An/Ill ih IHstrkt
V. Hill, 6 A. C. pp. 193, 207 ; 50
L. J. a B. 363.

(9) MaJUhewt v. Mayor, etc., of
ShtfiM, 31 SoL J. 773; Btmldow
v. UmudimM of Wertkg Union, 36
W. B. 168; 67 L. J. Ch. 762;
Fleet V. Metnifiolitan Atyl mt
Jtmril, 2 T. L. H. 361 ; Att.-dtii. v.
(WjHtration of Manchester, (1893) 2
Ch. 87; 62 L. J. Ch. 469; Atr.-
(leti. v. Bathminet and Pembrvke
Uotyital Board, (1901) 1 Ir. B. 161 ;
Att.-Qtn. Ncttingham Corpora-
tion, (1904) I Ch. p. 677 ; 73 L. J.
Ch. 612. Aa to whether evidenoa
is admissible of what occurred in
the neighbourhood of other similar
hospitals, see Hill v. MelropotHan
A»ylum» IHttriet, 42 L. T. 212 ; 47
L. T. 29 I and Att.-<hn. t. Nottrng'
ha-m Corporation, supra.

(r) WttkinsUm Local Board v.
Corporaiion </ Maneketttr, (1883) 3
Ch. I»i OSL. J.Oi. 383.

AND BUSINESS PBEMI8E6.

906

time will legalise s pablie noissnee or enable a party to pre- cup. vi.

scribe for its continuance. The public health, the welfare and
safety of the community, are matters of permanent import-
ance to which all the pursuits, occupaticos, and employments
of individuals inconsistoit with thdr presmation matt
yield («).

The comfort and enjoyment in their home, to which the NoUy tmic*.
inmates of a dwelling-house are of ri^t entitled, may be
materially interfered with by the carrying on of noisy trades
in the immediate neighbourhood. The law does not, however,
regard trilling inctmrenioiee, but (mly regards ineoovoiienees
which sensibly and materially diminish the comfort and enjoy-
ment of property. In order that a noisy trade may be an
actionable nuisance, there must be not merely a nominal but
such a sensible and real damage as a reasonable man would, if
subjected to, find injurious, regard being had, not only to the
thing done, but to the surrounding circumstances, such as the
situatim of the property, the habits of persons in the neigh-
bourhood, and the noises existing prior to the commencement
of the defendant's operations, and if, after taking ail these
circumstances into ctmsideratton, the Court finds a serious,
and not merely a slight additional interference with the com-
fort of the plaintifi and his family in th% occupation of his
house according to the ordinary notions of re^nable persons
in the locality, the Court will grant relief (t).

Mere noise alone will, on a proper case of nuisance being InjoaeUou to
made out, be a sufficient ground for an injunction (»). In-

(*) H'*W V. JSfomijr, 7 Km*. IW ; Jl-aiwr, (1807) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J.

8R.6.fl08; li. t. CVom, 3 Ounp. Cli.S6fi; aad Me Cathy. Home and

227 ; 13 E. B. "94 ; Att flen. v. CV- Colonial Stores, (19(M) A. C. p. 185 ;

/■onition of BarMlet/, (ls"4) \V. N. 73 L. J. Ch. 484 ; GiUing v. dray,

;J7: lltitterworthy. l'.«-AW<.rr( 11'. «.) (1910) 27 T. L. B. 39; McEuitn v.

Jliuert Bimril, (liM»9) A. C. p. 57. Stredman, (1912) ij. C. 146; Nne

(0 .S(. Helen's Sineltiinj Co. v. Imifrial Uolel a>,r.MMmt,{int)

T%i,p,„y, 11 H. L. 0. G42 ; 36 L. J. I Ir. B. 321.

U. B. 66 ; Stiiri/e$ v. lirulyman, 11 («} Onmf tr. UmAtri, 3 Bq.

C. D. 862 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 7M; 4» ; 13 L. T. 600 ; Ftn,riclt

Bnthmur V. iWMM aarf A\/kH, ICatt London KaUway Co., 20 Eq.

(1906) 1 Ok. p. 337, S49: •IBrmed, 844 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 602 ; Lady OoH

•Mi nom. Mmm V. Alfitri and v. Clark, 16 W. B. 6«»; DaU v.

NUISANCE TO DWELLiNO-HOUSES

junctions accordingly will be granted to restrain persons from
ringing bells (x), or playing musical instruments (y), or sing-
ing (z), or iiolding noisy entertainments and bringing togetlier
disorderly erowds (a), or danoing in romns abore the ;risintiff 's
flat (b), or whistling for cabs after midnight (c), or excessive
noise (d), or excessive noise and vibration (e) in carrying on a

Hay, 8 Ch. 467; 21 VT. B. 282;
Bturgt* Bridyman, 11 C. D. 852;
48 L. J. Ch. 758, und see Bmhmtr
V. Pdlttte ami Al fieri, (1906) 1 Ch.
pp. 2.'i7, 243 ; affirmed, nuh iiotn.
J'oltiie ami Alfieri v. Hutltiittr,
(19C7) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 365 ;
J{i>bihton V. LoiuU n (Imtiat Omni-
hiit Co.. (1909) 26 T. L. H. 233;
Oilling v. Oniy, (1910) 27 T. L. E.
39. 9«e timt Clarkr. Lloyd* Bank,
(1910) 79 L. 3. Ch. 64A; W. N.
187 ; Heath v. Sriyhlvn Corpiiration,
(190S) 98 I. T. 718 (injunctujii
refiisoil). As to order for iippoint-
uieiit of siiecial refirce to report,
wee Itrolir v. SaillarJ, 2 (.'. 1). 094 :
45 L. J. Ch. 214.

(x) SoUau V. De IleU, 2 Sim.
N. S. 133 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 163 ; 89
B. B. 245. See Uardmau j. Uel-
berton, (1866) W. N. 379.

{ij) Christie v. iHive;/, (1893) 1
Ch. 316; 82 h. J. Ch. 439; (ler-
ntaiue v. l.oiidun Sxkibitiim$,
75 L. T. 101.

(z) Mi4ioii V. Mills, (1897) 12
T. L. B. 246 ; New Imptriid Hotel
Co. r. Johnmm, note (<), ttipra
(limited injuDcdon).

(a) Walktr v. Bmmltr, 5 Kq. 25 ;
37 L. J. Ch. 33 ; Inckhahl v. KoUn-
eun. 4 Ch. 388; 17 W. K. 459;
Winter V. 11' hr, 3 T. L. K. 569;
IhatiK-ky. .,„rl/i Sl.il)'„i'ls/,ire Hail-
KiiH ('v., 5 I)e (1. & Sui. .'l^l; 25
L. J. Ch. 325; 90 U. U. 169;
Harlery. /Vn/fj;, (1893) 2 Ch. 447 ;
63 L. J. Ch. 623; Laimbtom y.
MMUk, (1894) 3 Ch. 163 ; 83 L. J.

Ch. 929; Oermaine r. London JSc-
hiUHoM Co., (1896) 75 L. T. 101 ;
Seu-ardy. /Vi««-«o»i, (1897) 1 Ch. 546;
/iellami/ v. U'elU, 60 L. J. Ch. 156;
63 L. T. 635; Denar v. City and
Siiliiirliaii Racecourse Co., (1899) 1
Ir. K. 345 ; Beckrr v. KarVt Court,
LimiUil, (1911) 56 S. J. 73 (side
shows).

(i) Jeiikin$ Jatkton, 40 C. D.
71 ; fi8 L. J. Ch. 124.

(r) Btiiamy y. WtlU, 60 L. J. Oi.
156; 63 L. T. 636.

{il] l'riiiit/> V. I.uinbfi t, 3 Ell. 409 ;
15 T. 6»)0; <lmm v. Ilf<l/< rtl, 21
W. H. 449; Jla.rler v. lloner, 44
I.. J. Ch. 627 ; Si. lltttn'a Smelting
Co. V. Tii'putf/, 11 II. L.C. 642 ; 36
L. J. a B. 66; daunt v. Fynn^, 8
Ch.12; 42L. J.Ch.l22; 8t»rgi»y.
Bridgman, 1 1 C. D. 8S2 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
766 ; PottHt V. Alfieri and Rutkmer,
(1907) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 365 ;
(Hlliiiy V. dray, ( 1910) 27 T. L. K. 39.

[e) Tinckler v. Ayleebiiry Ihiry
Co., i> T. L. R. 52 (milk cans);
Stiiryrs v. Jfriili/inun, sii/ira ; Hhel-
fcr V. City of Londot KUetrk
LigUins Co.. (im) 1 C9l i»7; 64
h. J. Ch. 216; Humy v. Bailey,
(1896) 11 T. L. B. 178; Knight r.
Isle of Wight Elrctric Light Co.,
(1904), 73 L. J. Ch. 299 ; Colirell v.
.St. I'anrnu Borough ( 'u<ifi< iV, (19U4)
1 ( h. 707 ; 7.; L. J. Ch. 276 ;
Li/imai, v. I'lilmni,, (UHM) W. N.
130; 91 li. T. 132; Bobinmm t.
LemdoH Omtermi OiMiAtM Co., (1909}
W T. L. B. 233; MtBvmk t.
Bkedmaa, (1012) a C. IM.

AMD BUSniBSS PBEIiraEB.

905

trade; so m to affect injnrioosly the comfortable occupation CNp. vi.

of a person's property and his health and that of his family.

In a recent case (/) the Court refused to restrain building Ut^
operations, niiich were being conducted in a reasonable
manner, from commencing before atmn m tite m<miti^, erm
tliough the noise from the works was a very swioits SQXMyMice
to the plaintiff, and injury to his hotel business.

Other cases of naisMiee to dwelling-howMs when eqnit- y^o«.«.j^
able relief has boen sought are: a gunjiowder factory (g);
the storing of damp jute, or other highly combustible
material (A) ; blasting operations (i) ; ezcessire heat frwn
stoves (A:) ; the obstruction of a chimney (I) ; the ob8tructi<m
of the passage of air through a defined channel to a cellar (m) ;
allowing damp from an artificial mound to soak into the wall
of a dwelling-house (n); nwing ^ sarfoee of land by an
artificial erection so as to cause more rainwater than wt»
wont to flow into a house (o) ; damage from a cesspool flowing
into a ditch ased for surface drainage (p) ; damage from tiie
insanitary condition of land caused by a gipsy encamp-
ment (g); the deposit of house refuse (r); the erection of a
public urinal in a street so as to be a nuisance («) ; the estab-

(/) Chrk- V. Uoyds Hank, (1910) 4 C. P. D. 172.

79 L. J. Ch. 644 (interkMoiDty (m) ^om t. fi^n^my, 2A Q. B. D.

injunction) ; W. N. 187. 481 ; 59 L. J. a B. 674. See Oahit

(g) Cromter y. TimUtr, 19 Ve». T. Bryma, (1908) 1 Oh. 259 ; 77
617 ; 13 R B. aw ! McMurmy v. L. .1. Ch. 78.

Vadw^, (1889) W. K. ai6; (1900) (n) Brodtr v. Saillard, 2 C. D.

W- X. 63. 692 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 214 ; see 7

(h) Hephurn v. Loriian, 2 H. & Edw. 7, c. 53, secta. 2 (5!^ and
M. ,tl5; ;il L. J. Ch. 293. ;)5 (3).

(i) Arnohl v. Fiinieu Railimy (o) Hurdmnn v. North Eatttm
<'"., 22 W. R. 613. Raibiay C,,., .{ C. P. D. 188; 47

[k) Iteinharrlt v. Mtntatti, 42 C. D- L. J. C. P. 36&

6«5; 68 L. J. Ch. 787; Samdan- (j>) PhUipi y. Ormth, (1868)

Cfari V. Qrotvmor Mmmen* W. N. 399.

(1800) 2 Cb. 373. See M to tili* (j) AH.-Otn. v. Sto,,e, (1S96) 12

latter caw, AU-Om. ▼. CWe, (1901) T. L. B. 76 ; 60 J. P. 16H.

1 Ch. pp. 206.207 ; 70L. J. Ch. 148. [r) Ait..(}tn. v. Tal-lleatley,

(I) /hn r,/ V. fimM. 1 K & J. (1897) 1 Ch. 860 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 276 ;

389; 22 lieav. 299; see table v. Att.-(hn. v. Ktiimer Brkk Co.,

nri/ant, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 263; 77 (1903) 67 J. P. 434.

L. J. Ch. 78; cf. Brj^ni r. L^evn, (») Biddtdph t. St. Otorgf*

906

NUISANCE TO DWELLING-HOUSES

Chap. VI.
Saol. a.

Damngea for
pHt injury.

lishment of a rifle range, or a nmge tor trying flreMrnw in tiie

' immediate neighbourhood of a dwelling-house (t) ; keeping
cattle in a pen (u), or pigs (x), or horses in a stable (jy), in the
immediate nei^boorhood of a dwelling-house; using a garden
as a skittle and bowling alley (z) ; children in hospital crying
through neglect (a) ; holding a regatta with aquatic sports on
a reservoir, disturbing the fishing rights of the plaintiff vendor
to the defmduit compuiy (b) ; bridii^ hmveraeee on Sm-
days and collecting noisy crowds (c) ; the obstruction of a
footpath in front of a house (d) ; the obstruction of tiie
aoeess to a house by causing eroifda to aasemble (mtride a
theatre (e) ; the breaking up a pavement (/) ; noise, vibra-
tion and fumes from shunting, turning, and repairing (mmi-
buses in a'street (g).
Where a plaintiff had sustained serioas injury to her hei^

Vettr;/, 3 De G. J. & S. 493; 33
L. J. Ch. 411 ; Vrrnon v. St. James'
Vtttrij, 16 C. D. 449 ; 50 L. J. Ch.
81 ; Chibital v. Paul, 29 W. E. 536 ;
8Man T. Matlock Local Board, 14
a B. D. 9»: 53 L. T. N. a 7SS:
Ptikitk T. i>fymoi>(A CarpenMon,
(18W) 42 W. B. 246; Hoare v.
Leiriiham Borough CoNnrt/, lA
T. L. B. 64; Lcyman v. Heiutif
Urban CouneH, (1902) 19 T. L. B.
73 ; Mayo v. .S«i<o» Urban Conticil,
(1903) 68 J. P. 7. iSee sect. 39,
Public Health Act, 1875, and aect.
47, PubUe Heidth Acta (Ainwid-
iii«it)Ac*,ie07.

(I) Btmnider v. Bigge, 34 Bmt.
S87 ; Danatt t. Dongall, 1 Set 5S8 ;
dHwrgv. Walker, ih. 599; HawUy
V. suae, 6 C. D. 5 21 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
782.

(t() London, Brighton, etc.. Bail-
way Co. V. Trumm, 11A.C.4«;S5
L. J. Ch. 3M.

(z) Att..am,. V. SfiMM. (IMC) 5
li. O. B. W.

(y) BaU V. Bttg, 8 C&. 4fl7 : 21
W. B. 283 : OvOitk v. Trtmlett, 20
W. B. 36; Brwder t. SaiUanl, 2

C. D. 692; 45 L. J. Ch. 214.

(z) liarham v. fMyn, (1876)
W. N. 234.

(a) Moy V. fitoop, (1909) 25
T. L. B. 635.

(») Athtk T. Kertk Stafordthire
Bailwag Cv., 5 De O. * Sm. 584 ; 3
Sm. & O. 283 ; 25 L. J. Clu825;
90 B. B. 159.

(r) Deirnr V. Ct/i/ anil Snhiirhan
Rareroiirtt Co., (1899) 1 Ir. R.345;
seo a« to rabbit coursing, Oytrt v.
Hantnn, (1912) 56 S. J. 735 ; W. N.
193.

(«() Wtimare y. Maifor o/BrittU,
11 W. B. l9H;Dewar y. Citg and
Suhnrhan Bacecourte Co., *upra.

(r) Barber v. Penley, (1893) 2 Ch.
447 , 02 I,. J. Ch. 623; WagitaffY.
Eiiinon Hell Co., (1893) 10 T. L. B.
SO; i.yont * Cii. v. (luUivtr and
the Capital Syndicate, (1913) 29
T. L. B. 428.

(/) Ahw Chriigkt Co. v. Ua^
<^i)Mm-.5B»O.M.*0.«4«. iM
Qmmm v. Limgton Oat Co., 2 El. A
KL 6B1 ; 3SL. J.M.C. 118.

(g) Kohihmn v. London (leneral
(JmHibm Co., (1910) 26 T. L. B. 233.

AND BU8IMB88 PBElffflEB.

907

and boain«M from noiM so great as to be almost intolerable,

tho Court granted an injunction against the 0(mtinaanoe of ******

the noise, and awarded the plaintiff damages in respect of tiie

past injurv (h).

The rigi ' : o make a noise so as to annoy a neighbour may be Pr««criptiT«
acquired by user or long enjoyment, but the right cannot "f^-^**"*
be supported by user unless during the period of user tiie
nfflse has amaonted to an aetioaable nuisance (i). User
which is neither physically capable of prevention by the owner
of the servient tenement nor actionable, cannot support an
easemmt (k). In a case iriiere a emfeeticmer had for more
than twenty years used a pestle and mortar in his back pre-
mises, which abutted on the garden of a physician, and the
poise and vibration were not felt as a nuisance and not com-
plained of; and a few years before bringing the action the
physician erected a consulting-room at the end of his garden,
and then the noise and vibration became a nuisance to him;
it was held that tiie defendant had not acquired a right to an
easement of making a noise and vibration, and an injnneii<m
was granted to restrain him (I).

The fact that noise and vibration from machinery has not
been complained of for more then twiHity years does not
deprive a neighbour of his right to prevent an increase of noise
and vibration, even though such increase be slight (m), if the
addition to the pre-existing noise amounts to a serious inter-
ference with the comfortable enjoyment of his property (n).

The doctrine of coming to a nuisance (o) is exploded (p). Co«uiig»o»
A man is not precluded from maintaining an action or a suit '

(/;) (hlling v. Gray, (1910) 27 4:«).

T. L. B. 39. (m) ffeathrr v. Pardon, 37 L. T.

(0 Crump V. LambeH, 3 Eq. p. 303 ; Sturgta y. Bridgman, 11 C. D.

413 ; 16 W. E. 417 ; Ball T. iby. p. 8M ; 48 L. J. Cfc. 7M.

8 CL p. 471 ; 21 W. B. 389 ; Sturgm (n) Btuhmer t. Pehuemid Al/eri,

T. Bridgmam, 11 0. D. 889 ; 48 (1906) 1 Ch. p. 237; aiBmed. mb

L. J. Oh. 788 : Colwtll V. St. Pancrat nam. PoUtu and Alfirri v. Rushmer,

Borough Oottneil, (1904) 1 Ch. p. (1907) A. C. 121 ; 76 L. J. Ch. ;J65.

712 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 275. (o) See 2 Bl. Comm. 402.

(A) Stiirgtt V. Bridgman, nifyra. ( p) Att.-Oen. v. Manehater t'or-

(l) lb. Beo n<iUin$Y. Ver,tey,\3 jxyrntioti, (1893) 9 Oh. p. 98; 89

Q. B. D. p. 309 ; 03 L. J. d. B. L. J. Ch. 489.

906

NUISANCE TO DWELLINO-HOUSES.

^8^t V ^^'^^ ^ bumnem which crmtes the noisanee had

been carried on hpfore he took possession (q).

Right of dnuD An interference with the right of drain is a nuisance to a
hoase. If the tmner of a house, being also owner of land

surrounding it, makes a drain or conduit through part of the
land to his house, and then sells the house with its appur-
tenances, the right to the conduit passes under the conveyance
as a thing appertaining to the house. The ri^t, however, ie
restricted to n reasonable use for the purpose of the house in
the condition in which it was when the grant was made (r).

As between the occupiers of adjoining houses, tiie occupier
who is bound to receive sewage passing in a drain under his
house and from thence to other premises, is bound to keep the
sewage from passing from his own premises to such other
premises otherwise than along the accustomed channel; and
this duty is independent of negligence on his part, and
independent of his knowledge or ignorance of the existence
of the drain (s). But if the drain is a public sewer so that
the occupier of the house which is bound to receive the sewage
is not liable for its condition, he is not liable for an escape
of sewage to the premises of his neighbour (t).

The same principles which apply to the right of drain are
also applicable to the right of drip, or the right to the flow of
water from the roof of one man's house on to the house or land
of another. The owner of the dominant tenement may lessoi
the burden of the servient tenement, but he cannot increase it
without the consent of its proprietor. Without such consent he
cannot increase the surface of his roof or permit the water
from neighbouring roofs to increase that which naturally falls
from his own (u).

(q) Ellicttnn v. Feefhnm, 2 Bing. Mitner's Safe Co. v. Oreat Northern

N. C. 134 ; 42 E. R. 5.57 ; Blim v. Raihray Co., (1907) 1 Ch. p. 833 ;

Hull, 4 Binp. N. 0. IS.J ; 7 L. J 7t) L. J. Ch. 99.

(N. S.) V. V. 122; 44 R. R. 697; {,) Humih riet V. Cvtuint, 3

Tipping v. .S<. Helen » Smelting Co., 9 C. P. D. 23 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 443,

1 Ch. 66, and see Crump y. Lambert, and see HoUand r. Ltmrnt, (1807)

3Eq. p. 4l;> ; 15W.B.417; 5Ao<(o 66L. J. aB. ^

Inm Co. r. Znyto, 7 A. C. 028. (<) ffumphrim v. CotmM, mpra.

(r) Woedr. Sanndtn, 10 Ch. 682 ; (u) 8ee Thonuu v. Thomas, 2 Cr.

•fBniuiig44L.J. Ck. M4;aiidtee M. ft E.34; 4 L. J. (N. 8.) Ex.

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

■ICTIOH 8.— HOIUMOU TO SUrPOBT. Cbkp. VI.

Sect 3

The right to the Boj^rt of land in ita natural state,

vertically by the subjacent strata, and laterally by the adjacent i"' """^
soil, is a right to which the owner of the surface is of common
right pritnd faeie entitled (x). The right ia not in the nature
of an easement, but is an incident to the right of the ordinary
enjoyment of property (y). The right ia not a right to have
the whole or any part of the subjacent or adjacent soil left
in Ha natural state, Irat is simply a ri^t to have the surfaea
supported in its natural state, so far as the subjacent or
adjacent soil is naturally capable of affording support. The
owner of the subjaemt or adjacent soil may work or dig on
bis own land in any \ray or to any extent he pleases, so long
as he does not cause the surface of his neighbour's soil to
subside or give way. He may, if an artificial support be
substituted, excarate his land to such an extent as, but for
thi! artificial support, would cause a subsidence of the neigh-
bouring land. Until tlio ordinary enjoyment of the surface is
interfered with no cause of action arises, for the right of the
uwner is, not that the substance supporting his soil shall not
be removed, but that the enjoyment of his land be not dis-
turbed by the removal of its support (z), and when actual

179 ; 41 H. R. 678 ; Fayy. Prentice, 309, 317 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 541 ; But-

I C. B. 828 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 298 ; 68 tertey Co. v. ^«Mr HucknaU Collim-y

H. R. 823 ; flan-ey v. WaUen, 8 Co., (1800) 1 C%. S7, H ; 7S L. J.

U. P. p. 162; 42 L. J.C.P.l«Vk; Oh. 63; (i»IO) A. 0. SM; 78 L. J.

and M* r««cW V. Xmmmh, 11 A. * Ch. 4U ; Londtnt and yorth JTeifem

K 40; 9 L. J. (N. 8.) a B. 1 ; SS AMieay Co. v. Howlry Park Coal

8- R. 276. Co., (1911) 2 Ch. p. no ; 8ti L. J.

[x) Humphne* v. Brogilen, 12 Ch. 5H7 ; (191.)} A. C. p. 25; 82

B. p. 744 ; 20 L. J. a B. 10 ; L. J. Ch. 76. !See. as to the prima

76 U. R. 402; Hunt v. Peake, 1 /acie right to support being uffeoted

John. 705 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 785 ; Jima- hf contract, atatute, or custom,

Mham V. IVilmn, 8 H. L. C. 348, poit, K>. 212 H Hf,

355; SOL. J. a B.4»; AiWliv. (y) AkUom* v. Itowmj. 8 H. L.

Hautei, 6 K ft B. MS; 7 E. * B. C. p. AM; ML. J. Q. E 181 ;

625 ; 37 L. Jf. Bs. 48; Neiv Short- DoUom r. Angus, 0 A. C. p. 808 ;

tton (MUitriM a*. T. Earl of Wet- M \\. J. a B. 689 ; We$t Leigh

merdmd, (1904) 2 Ch. p. 446 (n.) ; Collirry Co. v. Timnulifie * Co.,

73L. J. Ch. 338(n.); BuUtrknowle (1908) A. C. p. 30; 77 L. J. Ch.

rullieri/ Co. ▼. liithop Autklanl 102.

huU'ttrial Co., (1906) A. U. pp. {*) Badkoutty. Bonomi, 9 B..luC.

ti. 14

210 MUISAMCBB TO SUPPORT.

cbkp. VI. damage oeenn by th« ramoral of the aupport MHliar th* eara

— *' — and skill with which the works may have been carriad on, nor
tlie unstable nature of the aoil, nor the difficulty of pcoppiog
it up, will form any defraoe to an actioQ (a). The Mfttato <tf
Limitatiooa runs from the date of the subsidence (6), and if
there are successive subsidences caused by the same excava-
tion, each subsidence gives rise to a fresh right of action (c).
The right to aoj^rt ezista aa well in the ease of lands iriiidi
are not conterminous as of lands which are conterminous.
Any land which depends mediately or immediately on the
anpport of other hmd, and ia oapable of being injured by its
removal, is lor this purpose neigbboortng land (</).

An overlying seam in a mine has the same right of support
from below that the surface has (e).

The right of support is however limited to a right of support
from land in its natural state to land in its natural state. If
the support required is increased, either by increasing Qie
weight of the sufqwrted land, or by diminiahing its self -sup-
porting power, no right exists in the absence of prescription
or grant, to have this additional sui^Knrt supplied by the neigh-
bouring land, and no subsidenee resulting from this cause
gives a ri^t of aetimi (/). If I7 th« aeticm of a landowner

503 ; 34 L. J. Q. B. tSl ; Att.-Qm. Co., lupra.

T. Conduct Colliery Co., (1896) 1 (f) Darlty Main CMiery Co. ?.

Q.B. 3U1,312; U4 L. J. Q. B. 207. Mitchdl, 11 A. C. 127; M L. J.

{a) 8m Httm^hrie* v. Brcgim; Q. B. &28; Crmmhi* t. WalUutd

HmU V. Ptah, ngftm; Alt.-amt.T. Loeal Board, (ISBl) 1 a B. «03:

CfTt.tui' CoUitrg Co., (IWft) 1 a B. 60 L. J. a B. SU; WtH Uigk

p. 311 ; 64 L. J. a B. a07 ; Cotticty Co. v. TmrnkUfi * Co.,

The Trinidwl Atj.l,wte Co. y. (1908) A. C. p. M; 77 L. J. Ck.

Ambard, (1899) A. C. 494, 602 ; 68 KKi

li. J. P. C. 114 ; Wat Leigh CU- (d) Broume t. Robin; 4 U. & N.

liery Co. v. Tunnicliffe <fc Co., (1908) ISti; 2H lu J. Ex. 259; Birmingham

A. C. p. 29 ; 77 L. J. Cli. 102. Vurporal%on v. AUen, 6 C. D. 384 ;

See, aa to form ot order netniniog 46 L. J. Ch. 676 ; see UowUg Park

woarking, lemoTing, or iajiiriBf tbe Coal Co. r. London and Iforth

pUUn toft for Um ot Wmttm MaOwap Oo.,{ina) A. 0.

rooh ia ooal miaet^ Mtt^ r. p. U ; 89 L. J. Ob. f. 80.

Lancailer, 23 C. D. p. 6U ; *9 (e) BtOttrUg Co. r. Ntw HuchM

L. J. Ch. 848. CiHiery Co., (1910) A. C. p. SM;

(/>) Uarkhoutt V. BoHomi; Wt$t 79 L. J. Ch. 411.

Leigh ColUtry Co. v. Tunnid^r. (/) Partridge t. Scott, 3M. ft W.

HmaANCBS TO BUPFOBT.

sn

. VI.

whose land intervenes between the buub of two other pro-
prietors Uie right of support to which one of these landowners
i« entitled is affected, he cannot as against the other land-
owner claini a greater right of support th«i he wo«ld have
been entitled to had the land of the introing owner bc«,
left in Its natural state (g).

fromVnf * "'.""T* f"" '"'^ '^'"^ "^ht to support Support of U«l

from land in its natural state to land In its natural riate ''^i^-'^-^
the right includes only the right to such support as i^'^*'
furnished by the permanent conditions of land, not by its
accidental circumstances (*). The existMiM of water in a
drowned mine being obviously a circumstance of an accidental
and temporary character, a mine owner may drain it away
provided he works hi. mines in the ordinary and usual
manner, although it may contribute to the support of the soil
above^ No right to resist the withdrawal of the water can be
gamed by prescription (i). So also, it seems that ns a general
rule, an adjoining owner may drain his soil of water, if for any
reason it becomes necessary or convenient for him to do so
even though the result of doing so may be to cause a sub-
sidence of the soil of his neighbour (*). 80 also, in a recent
case (/), the 'lefendnnts were held not liable for the sub.
8.dence of the plaintiffs' surface caused by the defendants
pumping up brine f«,m th«r mine, in domg which they also
drew off some brine from the plaintifls' mines. Where how-
ever a plaintiff's land was supported, not by water but in one
case by a bed of wet sand or running silt (m). and in another

220; 7 L. J.(N.8.)Ex. 101; 49
K. R. 878, andsee AiMoNT. Angiu,
« A. C. p. 740; M L. J. Q. B. M0.

(y) Mayor, Ht., ^Bhmi^gkmm v.
^We»,6 C. O. »«: M L. J.
673.

{/') FJIiaU V. North EaOtrn Rail.
^V. I J. 4 H. 145; 2 De O.
F * J. 423; 30 L. J. Ch. 160; 10
H. L. C. 333 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 402

(') II..

(*) i'oppUwM V. Scd^tiMM, L.
«• * B*.a4»; 88 L. J. Bjfc ije;

ISn^iih V. Metropolitan Heater
Board, (1907) 1 K. B. p. 602 ; 76
L- J. K B. 361.

(0 Salt Union v. Brunner Mond
* Co., (1906) 3 K. B. 822 ; 76 L. J.
K. B. (53 ; and see the Brine Pump-
ing (Compensation for Subridence)
Act. 1891 (M 4 M VMt 0. 40).

(w) Jm4mm r. BrttoH, He., Oat
«».,(W99)JCh.217; 68 L. J. Ch.
487 : sad Me #T«M«r v. BirhtnM

77 L. J, Oh. aig.

14-a

mnsAMOXB to Avnasa.

cb.p. VI. eaM by pitch («), and thn defemUnto had caused the pluintiff "s
land to Huhside by withd'-awing he support afforded by th«
w«t Band and pitch, it waa held that an actionable naiMnea
had been eommitted.
Support for The right to mipport of land and the right to Bupp- Tt ot
J2J2^ buildings on land stand upon a different footing as to tfie
mode of acquiring them, the fornwrbting a rii^t of psropeny

Mwlogoos to the flow of a natural stream or of air, wliil ' t!iP
latter is an eaBement and is founded upon jweBcription or
grant, expresB or implied ; but the dharaeter of the rif^s when
•eqoired, is in «adi OMe the name (u).
B^MviM A right to lateral support from the adjoining woil may be
*' •«q«>r«l for a building irtiich has enjoyed that support peace-

ably and without interrup*iim for the prescriptive period of
twenty years. The rule is the same where a building has
been enlarged or pulled down and a building of an entirely
different character has bem built up«i ttie land. The ri^t
to suniort of the new or enlarged building is established after
a peaceable and uninterrupted enjoyment of support for
twenty years, and an action will lie against the ownar of the
adjoining land if he disturbs his land so as to take away the
right of lateral support,, previously afforded to the land (p).
So also a house which has stood for twenty years acquires a
right to vertical support (g). But to establish a right to
support by long enjoyment, it must be shown thr.t the owner
of the servient tenement knew or had the means of knowing
that his house was affording support to the oHwr (r).
Right ot «in>ort A right to support of soil in excess of the ordinary commoo
to land ari«Dg , • , jgp^ j,y implication of law, where the owner of
uVon •••»rauc«. j^nd has granted the surface, reserving to himseli tne bud-
jacent minerals, or has granted any part of hia land, retaining
the adjoining part. As a grant of property carries with it
(n) Trinidad Atphalt Co., (1899) 749 ; 20 h. J. W. B. 10 ; 76 B. B
A. C. 5M ; 68 L. J. P. 0. 114. 402.

; / ,uUouM V. BoHomi. B. B. ft (9) BtU v. Lotf. 10 Q. B. D. S4?
E. 0«, per Wille*. J. ; DaUrn v. 571 ; 68 L. J. a B. «0- Loi. v
A.gu>:r\. C. pp. 792. W; M iWi. 9 A. 0. SM; fiS L. J. a B
L J (i* B 689 2fi7.

\u) Mt.m V. >ui>ra; (r) Ton* v. Prtrfon, 24 C. D. 739

Uimvhritt V. Brogdtn, 12 a B. 63 L. J. Ch. 80; I/.Am Lighitng^

NUIBAlfOBB TO SfTPFORT. tlS

all legal incident* which are necessary for the reasonable cUp- VI.
enjogmiMit of ike propnij in tb* itete in iriiidi it wm at — ^Htl. —

time of the ^rant or which aro npcessnry for the purposes for
whaii, according to the obrious intent of the parties, the
grant was made, soeh a measure of support, adjaeeot and
Bobjaeent, an ia necessary for the land in the condition it was
at the time of the grant or in the state for the purpose of
putting it into which the grant was made, passes as an inci-
dent to the grant («). Wlien aooordingly a man grants •
house, retrtininR the adjoining soil, the right n{ support from
tho adjoining soil passes by implication of Jaw as beiof(
necessary and esaential toe tfie enjoyraMit of ttie Imkim (<).
So also where a iimn conveys land for the express purpose that
huildings may be erected thereon, there is privid facie the
fjrant of a right to hare not only the surface of the land in
its natural state, but the buildings to be erected tiieraon sup-
ported by the adjacent and subjacent minerals reswrad to t^
gniiitor hy the deed (it).

The implied grant, arising upon the sale of a plot of land faifiM richi ^
for building purposes, of the right to lateral sufqwrt from ^g,V ****
adjoining lan'^ retained by the vendor, will be qualified when
the purchaser is aware tiiat the vmdor intends to build on the
land reserved; e.g., where the land sold forms part of «
building estate. In such a case, it seems that the vendor may
excavate upon the adjoining land in a reasonable and proper
manner to carry oat his building works {*) . But if, hy build-

' V. r.omioH Graving Dock Co., v. Ct/n Crihhwr ISrick To., (1894)

(Ittoi) 2 Ch. 300 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 668 ; 2 Ch. p. 164 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 600;

(liiOJ) 2 Ck 447; 71 L. J. Cfc, Jary T. BamtUy CorpenUmt.

(t»07) 2 Ch. p. eiS ; 76 L. J. Ch.

(«) OaUAmitm JUihrnj/ Co. y. 6*8; t. PHichard, (ISM) 1

St>ret,2mu>q.m iElUmr.lhHk Ch. p. (BC ; 77 L. J. Ch. 406.

Kattmt Hailieaif Co., 10 H. L. C. (/) DalUm r. .tnyu,, 6 A. C. p.

■m ; ;I2 L. J. Ch. 402 ; Proud v. 826 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 689.

Ilattt, 34 L. J. Ch. 112; Hext t. («) Aipden v. Htiidon. 10 Ch..

mn, 7 Ch. TOO; 41 L. J. Ch. p. 401 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 369; Siddunt

Ttil ; liiqhy v. Btnuett, 21 C. D. v. .SAort, 2 C. P. D. 572 ; 46 L. J.

•■'•■'!•, -iH- , 31 W. R. 222 ; London Ch. 795 ; and see Jary v. /fari.»/ey

nud Sorth H Vofwt Raihi-ay Co. v. CorporoAm, (1907) 2 Ch. p. 613 ; 70

/CroM, (1893) 1 Ch. p. 27 ; 62 L. J. L. J. Ok <«8.

Ch. 1 ; Ortat Wml*r» Bmlvomg Co. (■) Ayiy t. Bm»m, tl C D.

214

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

ing operations, the vendor (or a purchaser of any part of the

Scott 8

' land reserved) lets down the house of the first purchaser, he

will be liable, provided that he could have bnilt in a reason-
able way without inflicting the injury (,(/).
Kight of support As between two adjoining housos belonging to different
^intogtoiiMt. owners, a right to lateral support can be acquired by long
enjoyment (z), or under the provisions of the Prescription
Act (n), but the enjoyment must be of right and not
"clam" (6). So, also, if a building is divided into floors
separately owned, the owner of each upper floor or flat ia
entitled to vertical supixirt from the lower pin f of the building,
and to the benefit of such lateral support as may be of right
enjoyed by the building itself (c). Where also houses have
been so constructed as io be mutually subservieut to and
depending on each other, neither of them being capable of
standing or being enjoyed without the support it derives from
its neighbour, the alienation of one house by tbe owner of both
does not estop him from claiming in respect of the house he
retains that support from the house sold which is at the same
time afforded in return by the former to the latter tene-
ment (d).

Although no right to support may exist as between adjoin-
ing houses or buildings, a man. who takes down his house must
use due care and skill, and take reasonable and proper precaa-

559 ; 31 W. E. 222 ; and see Birm- Gravinii Doch Co., (1901) 2 Ch.

xrxjhum, Dwllei/, etc., llarihirnj ('<i. v. p. 305 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 558.

Jims, 38 C. D. 295 ; 57 I.. J. Ch. (o) Ltmaitre v. /Mi-M, 19 C. D.

106: r.roomjiehl v. llWiiim*, (1897) 281 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 173.

1 Ch. pp. 613, 616; 66 L. J. Ch. {h) Tome v. I'rerton, 24 C. D.

305; Fretlerick- lletts it: Co. V. Pick- pp. 742. 743; 53 L. J. Ch. 50;

ford <fc Co., (1906) 2 Ch. pp. y3, Union i.iyhleragr Co. v. London

94; 7S L. J. Ch. 483; Browne v. Oraving Dutk Co., (1901)2 Ch.300;

Floietr, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 228 ; 80 70 L. J. Ch. 8tt8; (1902)2 Ch. M7 ;

L. J. Ch. p. 184. 71 L. J. Ch. 791.

(y) Riijh;/ v. Bennett, tu/ira ; and (<•) Dalton v. Amjut, 6 A. C. p.

MP Oroirenor Hotel Co. v. Unmiltm, 793; 50 L. J. Q. B. 689.

(IN94) 2 Q. B. pp. 841, 842; 63 [il) Itirhanlt v. llnne, 9 Exch.

L. J. Q. li. 661. 218, 221 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 3 ; JimetM.

(2) Dalton V. Anijiia, (i A. ('., p. I'rililairtl, (1908) 1 Ch. p. 636 ; 77
802 ; .')0 I,. J. Q. B. 689; l.ove v. I.. J. Ch. 405 ; cf. Ilowartky. Arm-
Bell, 9 A. C. 286; 53 L. J. Q. B. strony, 77 L. T. 62.
257; Union Lighttrage Co. y.LumUm

>

NUISANCES TO SUPPOBT.

216

tions in pulling down his wall, and he is not boond to find a chap. vi.

substitutfi or equivalent for the support which he has a right

to remove. An action, however, will lie if the wall be pulled

down 80 carelessly, negligently, and unskilfully as to cause

damage to the adjacent house or buildings (e). The owner of

the premises adjoining those pulled down must shore up his

own on the inside, and do ererything proper to be done upon

them for their protection. If, however, the pulling down be

irregularly and improperly done, and injury is caused thereby,

the person so acting may be liable for it, although the owner

of the premises injured may not hare done all he ought for

his own protection (/).

The mere circumstance of juxta-position does not render it
necessary for a person who pulls down a wall to give notice of
his intention to the owner of an adjoining wall (g) ; nor if he
is ignorant of the existence of the adjoining wall— as where it
is underground— is he bound to use extraordinary care in
pulling down his own (A). If he gives notice of hia intention
to pull down his wall to the owner of the adjoining premises,
he is not bound to use any extraordinary care in preventing
an injury to the adjoining {mmises, althouj^, fVom the pecu-
liar nature of the soil, he may be compelled to lay the founda-
tion of his new buildings several feet deeper than that of the
old ones (t).

A party wall is a wall standing on the line between twopMymlL
estates owned by different owners for the use of both estates.
The common use of a wall separating adjoining lots of le,nd
belonging to different owners is primd facU evidence that tho
wall and the land on which it stands belong to both owners in
equal undivided moieties as tenants in common (A). A wall

(f) Walters v. P/ei/, Moo. & M. 363.
3«.i ; Brown v. U indur, 1 Cr. & J. (,) Tr.m>tr T. Chadwidc. 6 mnm.
26; Truwrr v. Chadwkk, 3 Biiig. N.C. 1; 8L. J.Bz.288; 43B.B 6A9
N. C. 334 ; 6 L. J. (N. 8.) C. P. 47 ! (*) lb. 8m Sc^hwark and V,.„x.
43 B. B. 659 ; 6 Btng. N. 0. 1 ; 8 hatl Water Co. v. Waudtwarth Bmrd
L. J. (N. 8.) Ek. 386; Smthwarh <•/ Work,, (189») 2 C h. pp. 818.
and Vauxholl Wattr Co. y. Wandt- 613 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 6o7.
irorlh ISoardof W,^k,>, (1S98) 2 Ch. (/) Mnue,/ v (h„jd,r, 4 C. * P.
W). til2, 613 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 637. 161 ; 34 B. B. 782.

ij) Wadtrt v. Pftil, Moo. ft M. (A) Mattt v. BamlMt*, ft Iwuit

216

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

miiy l>e a ptirty wall to such a height as it belongs in common
to two buildings, and may be an external wall for the rest of
its height (/). One of the tenants in common may take down
the wall, if it be dime with the intention of rebuilding it (m),
but it must be with that intention (/;)• Where an owner of
a house grants a divided moiety of an outside wall, with the
intention of making such wall a party wall between his house
and an adjoining house to be built by the grantee, the law
implies the grant and reservation in favour of the grantor and
grantee respectively of such easements as may be necessary to
carry out the common intention of the parties with regard to
the user of the wall. Accoi-dirigly, if it is within the contem-
plation of the parties that the grantee shall supiwrt the roof
of the house he intends to build upon the moiety of the wall
comprised in his grant, the other moiety of the wall will be
subject to an easemnnt of lateral support for the benefit of the
roof when erected, and similarly the grantee's moiety of the
wall will pass to him subject to the easement of lateral support
for the benefit of the grantor's roof if supported by his half
of the wall (o).

The law on the subject of party walls in the Metropolis is
now governed by the London Building Act, 1894 (p), which

2<» ; 14 R. E. 696 ; CubiU v. M<r;
8 B. & C. 2i7 ; 32 B. B. 374 ;

Wataoii V. Gray, 14 C. D. p. 19d ;
49 L. J. Ch. 243 ; Mnmn x. Fid-
ham Corpnrntiim, (1910) 1 K. B. p.
637 ; 79 L. J. K. U. 385.

(/) Wetton V. AriiM, 8 Ch. 1084 ;
43 L. J. Ch. 123; Druri/ y. Armij
and Naiiij Co-o/ieratife Sujiiih/ Co.,
(1896) 2 Q. B. 271 ; 6d L. J. M. C.
169. See Fredn-irk Bttt* * Co. r.
Pidtjord A Co., (1906) 2 Ch. pp. 93,
96 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 483 ; nnd Lundon,
(llowf.iteraliire, etc, fhiiri/ Co. v.
MorUi/, (191 1) 2 K. H. 2.57 ; 80 L. J.
K. IJ. 908.

(»i) "iihltl V. I'oilfi; 8 ]{. & C.
267 ; :VJ U. U. 371 ; St,i,i<liir,l llnid;
ttr. V. Htuka, 9 C. D. 68 ; 47 L. J.
Ch. 664. Bee ■■ to the dutjr of

penon taking down a party wall to
aee that reasonable skiU is exer-
cised, Uughit V. I'errival, 8 A. C.
443 ; 62 L. J. Q. li. 719; Sonth-
vark and Vaiir/iall ]l'iiter Co. \.
n'n.idtwortli Board of tt'orka, (1898)
2 Ch. pp. 612, 613 ; 67 L. J. Ch.
H67.

(n) .Stedman v. Smith, S E. & B.
1 ; 26 L. J. Q. B. 314. See Colbeck
V. QinUtrt Co., 1 Q. B. D. p. 242;
46 L. J. Q. B. 226.

(o) ,Tonr» V. Pritchnrd, (1908) 1
Ch. pp. (i3.), (Lie ; 77 L. J. Ch. 405.

(/<) 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii. Part
viii. See Lrii'in it- Salome v. C/iarimi
<'nmntid Kiiaton lluilwny Co., (1906)
1 Ch. J). 51(!; 75 L. J. Ch. 282.
As to definition of party wall, we
sects. 6 (16), 68.

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

817

regulates the relations between building owners and adjoining ckap- vi.

owners whose property is separated by a party wall, whether

the wall is one of which they are tenants in common or
not (q).

An owner's right to support will bo protected by an injunc- Protection of
tion (/•), when the interference with the right is of a sub- b^injll'i.S'*
stantial nature even though the pecuniary loss actually result-
ing from the defendant's wrongful acts is small (.s). The
Court will also interfere by injunction before subsidence has
actually taken place if satisfied that injury is imminent and
certain to result from the defendant's acts (t), also when the
defendant claims the right to do acts which must inevitably
cause a subsidence (it) ; when the subsidence is serious, a
plaintiff will not be deprived of bis legal right to an injunction
bpciiuse the result of the order may be to close the defen-
dant's works (ir).

An injunction to restrain the working of mines in such a
way as to let down the surface, will not be granted upon an

(</) Letei$ A Solome v. Charing Qtn. v. Comliiit Collirry Co., (1895)
Crou and Etuimt BaU: . y Co., 1 Q. B. p. 313; 64 L. J. Q. l\.
'"fre- 207; Trinula,! At),lialt Co. v.

(/■) Sep Duqilale v. Ruhertnon, 3
K. & J. ]). 701 ; 112 R. R. 349;
limit V. I'mke, Joh. p. 705 ; 29 L. J.
t h. 'Hh ; /Vi,„,i V. liatea, 34 L. J.
Ch. p. 312; lfe.rt\-. dill, 7 C'h. p.
718; 41 L. J. C>>. p. 767 ; Sfw
Sliarlttmi Cullitriet Co. v. Karl of
nVa<iRore/a»<i,(1904)2Ch.p. 445(n];
82 L. T. 72« (H. L.); BUkop
Aiiiktand Indiutrial Co. v. Biitter-
hmwh Collitry Co., (1904) 2 Ch.
r|>. 4;«), 440 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 335,
•Wo: iiffirined (1906) A. C. .iOo: 75
li. J. Ch. 541 ; Manclieshr Corjicra-
tii'ii V. AVii' Moss Collier/) ('<:, (1906)
•-' ( h. 564 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 772 ; (1908J
.\.('. 117 ; 77L. J.Ch. 392; Lmdoh
nnd North Watem Bailimy Co. v.
//oM% Park Coal Co., (1911) 2 Ch.
pp. 110, 111 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 537 ;
(1913) A. C. 11 ; S2 L. J. Ch. 76.

(«) S!d,!i,i:x V. S.':!irl, 2 C, 1>. J).,
p. 577 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 795 ; AH.-

Jmlmrd, (1899) A. C. p. 600 ; 68
L. J. P. C. 114 ; Xem SharhUm Col-
lieries Co. V. Karl of WeKtmnrtland,
(19(H) 2 Ch. p. 445 (n) ; 79 L. T.
716; 82L. T. 726 (H. L.).

(«) ammu T. Bhort, 3 C. P. D.
p. 577 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 796 ; Birm-
ingham CurportUion v. AIUh, 6 C. D.
p. 287 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 673 ; Darley
Main Colli fry Co. v. MiUhrll, 11
A. C. p. 145 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 629.

(») Proml V. BiteK, 34 L. J. Ch.,
p. 412 ; Ilext v. Gill, 7 Ch. pp. 711,
712; 41 L. J. Ch. 761; and see
Att.-atH. V. Cmtduii Colliery Co.,
(1896) 1 a B., p. 314 ; 64 L. J.
a B. 207.

(«) Earl of Wettmoreliind v. AW
SharMm Collirriea Co., 79 L. T.,
p. 722; se«> Triuidwl .Isjihttll Co. v.
Ambaril, (1899) A. C. p. 602 ; 68
L. J. P. C. 114.

218

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

VI. interlocutory application, except in the clearest case, on
^*°*' — account of the serious injury which might result from stop-

ping the working of a mine even for a short time (y).
Prima facie The prima facie right of the owner of the surfmc to supjiort,
qiSaisid b'T''' qualified or waived by the instrument, or Act of Parlia-

iutrument mcnt regulating the respective rights of the owners of the

«rvering title to , j * fu • ^ • xu *U

surface and Surface and of the mmes, so as to give the mine owner tne
"""«"• right to work his mines in such a way as to let down the sur-

face, but to exclude the right to support the language of the
instrument, whether it be a deed of grant or reserration, or
tease, or Act of Parliament, or award, must unequivocally
convey that intention, either by express words, or by neces-
sary implication {z). The same presumption in favour of a
right to support which regulates the rights of the parties in
the absence of an instrument defining them will apply also in
construing the instrument (a). To exclude the presumption
in favour of the right to support, it is not enough that mining
rights have been reserved or granted in very wide terms, or
that powers and privileges usually found in mining grants
are conferred without stint, nor is it enough in the case of a
lease, that the lessee is bound to work out the minerals, or to
work the minerals in a prescribed manner, or in the case
of an inclosure Act or award, that the lord, in whose favour
the mines are reserved or regranted, is authorised to work the
minerals and enjoy the property as fully and freely as if the
inclosure Act had not been passed, nor is it enough to

(i/^ Hilton V. Earl QrwtviU*, Cr. Ch. 641 ; Butterley Co, v. ITew Huek-

& i p. 297 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 398 ; M nail Collien, t 'o., (1909) 1 Ch. pp. 48,

B. B. 297. 4» ; 79 L. J. Ch. 6a ; (1910) A. C. pp.

{i) Itowhntham v. Wilmn, 8 II. ;i85, 386; 79 L. J. Ch. 411. See

L. C. p. .'i6li; 30 L. J. Q. B. 49: Brewery. Rhymney Iron Co., (1910)

Dmis V. Trelnirne, 6 A. C. 467; 50 1 Ch. 766; 79 L. J. Ch. 334. As

L. J. Q. B. 666 ; Bell v. Lore, 10 to power of a tenant for life of

Q. B. D. pp. 668 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. t<ettled land to grant a lease with

290 ; 9 A. C. 286 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. right to let down the •iu.'<«e by

267 ; NtiB Sh-irlttoH (yiltrit$ Co. mining, see Sitw^l filnW o/ Ltm-

V. Earl »/ H'eitmortland, (1904) 2 dethorough, (1906) 1 Cb. 4fiO; 74

Ch. 443 (n.) ; 73 L. J. Ch. 338 (n.) L. J. Oh. 264.

{II. Ji.} : IliitttrhiotvleCdIlierii Cn. \. < n) Itutlerhnnwie Collirri/ Cn. v.

HUhitp .hiitluHil luduttrial Co., llUliO)) Auckland Iiiduatria' Co.,

(1906) A C, pp.309, 313 ; 76 L. J. mtpra.

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT. S19

exclude the presumption, that compensation is provided in a VI.

measure adequate or more than adequate to cover any damage ^

likely to be ocoaaioned by the exercise of the powers and cw"""*
privileges conferred on the mine owner (h). But although
a provision for compensation is not of itself sufficient to show AbMnso c.f com-
that the mine owner working in the usual and proper way is ^^^..^u"""
at liberty to let down the surface, the absence of any provision P'
for compensation is some indication that the ordinary rights
of the surface owner were intended to be left untouched, and
the presence of a provision for compensation, which is
obviously inadequate or plainly inappropriate if applied to
damage by subsidence, is cogent evidence to prove that subsi-
dence was not contemplated (c). Accordingly, where there
was a proviso in a mining lease that the lessee of the mines
should have liberty to enter upon the land and carry away the
minerals and do all such acts in or under the demised premises
as should be necessary or convenient for working and carry-
inp away the minerals, making compensation for all damage
occasioned by the exercise of the rights thereby reserved, it
was held that the mine owner might not work the mines so
as to let down the surface (d). So also where it was pro-
vided by an inclosure Act that the mine owner should work the
mines, making satisfaction for the damage occasioned thereby
to the owner of a freehold allotment on the surface at the rate
of 51. yearly during the working of the mines, it was held that
he had no right to let down the surface (c). So, also, where
before the year 1767 the lords of a manor had the right to
work the mines under the waste lands of the manor and to let
down the surface, provided enough pasturage was left for the
commoners, and by an Inclosure Act of 1767 the waste lands
were inclosed and allotted, and the lord of the manor was em-
powered to work the mines as fully aa before the Act without
making or paying any satisfaction for so doing, the damage
caused to an allottee by such working to be borne and distri-

(6) BuUerlmowlt CoUiery Co. v. (1906) A. C. p. 314 ; 76L. J. Ch. «41.
Bithop Autkland Mnttrial Co., (-/) Dai-u v. Treharne, 6 A. C.
(liKMi) A.C.p.3l:};-5L. J.Ch.541. 4(iO ; 50 L. J. Q. B. «65.

(') lii'fterhwwie Colliery Co, v. («) r.nie y. Brll, 9 A. C. 286 ; 53
i<HAop Autkland Induttriul Co., L. J. Q. B. 357.

220

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

■■MdcBoe
iaplwd.

Ck«p. VI. buted aroong the occupiers of the othor allotments, according
?: — to their yearly rslnes, it was held th u the common law right
of the owners of the surface to support jf the surface was not
taken away, the provision for uon -payment of compensation in
working being consistent with the working of the mines in
the ordinary way and subject to the ordinary right of the
surface owners, while the fact that compensation was to be
paid by the occupiers of other allotments and not by the
owners, su' rted the construction that the clause did not
refer to ' .ence of the surface (/). If a compensation
clause is .,»iible of being satisfied by reference to n<;t8 done
" on " the surface, then, though it may be wide enough to
cover also damage done " to " the surface by tnking away the
support, still it must be confined to damage ddie " on " the
surface, and the inference th"t supjwrt may be taken away
oa payment of compensatioi not be made (g).
Bifht tockoM On the other hand, when it appears from the terms of a
lease that the parties intended that a lower seam should be
worked, and there is evidence that the system of working con-
templated by the parties must of necessity injure the upper
seam, but will not destroy it, and that it is impossible to get
the minerals at all without letting down the upper seam, in
such a case the general common law right of support will be
displaced (h).

So also the terms of a grant may l)o such as not
deprive the surface owner of his right to support, ba. •
of compensation for loss of support (t).
CnitomMto A custom or prescription to work mines so as to let down
w'tt'to irt da«n Or destroy the surface without making compensation for the
tbenibn. injury and damage that may be done, is unreasonable and

(/} Biittfrkuowh I'oUiery ('o.\. Slavtlty Coal and Iron Co., (l90S)3i

Hithop Aurkliiml Induttrial Co., T. L. E. 136.

(1906) A. C. p. 813; 76 L. J. Ch. 541. (>) IViUiamt v. Ilatjnall, lb \V. R.

(j) Butl»rknowU ColUery Co. v. 273; Buchanan v. Andrtw, L. E.

Bithoji Awlthind Mtutrial Co., 2 H. L. (8o.) p. 293 ; <W/ T. /MdKii-

(190f))A.C.,p.309; 75L.J.Ch.841. »<m, 6 a B. D. 169; 49L.J. Q.B.

(/,) lliitterlt;/ <'n. v. .Vfjo ffitehutV 262. See BuUrrknmvh CUIirri/ Co.

^'iillieri/ I'd., (1909) I < 'h. 37; 78 v. DUIiap .\tirklawl IndmtrUil Co.,

L. J. Ch. 63 : (1910) A. C. .381 ; 79 (1906) A. ( '. pp. 321, 322 ; 75 L. J.

L. J. Ch. 411 ; Locktr-Lamptan y. Ch. 641.

NUISANCES TO SUPFOBT.

bad (Jlr). But » custom thst the tord of a manor may g«t »H

the mineralH inder copyhold lands, paying compensation to a
copyhold tenant for any damage he may do to the surface in
getting them iw good (/).

When a proposed undertaking passes through a mineral
district, provisions are often inserted in the Act which autho-
rises the undertaking, excepting all minerals under the land
taken by the company, but giving the company power, as soon
as the workings of the minrials approach within a certain dis-
tance of the surface, to stop the workings on purchasing out
the rights of the coal owners and paying them compenmtion
for their loss in not being permitted to work them. In
Dwlley Canal Co. v. Gmzehrook (m), the clause which em-
powered the mine owner to proceed with the workings of the
mines in the event of the option to purchase being declined,
declared that he might carry thi n on " provided no injury be
done to the navigation." The ( <urt said that the meaning
of the proviso eould not be that the owners were to be
reepmsible at all events for any injury done to the carnal, for
then the company would never purchase the minerals ; that
the reascmable mode of reconciling the different parts of the
Act was to say " either that the party working the mines was
to do no unnecessary damage or injury to the navigation, or
no extraordinary damage or injury by working them out of the
ordinary mode " (n).

It has been decided that the owner, or lessee, of minerals, is
not liable for damage to neighbouring land or buildings by.

Co. V. Lancathire and i'orkthirt
Railwau Co., 14 A. C. 248; W L. J.
a B 39.

(n) See Stourhridge Canal Co. v.
Earl of Dudley, 3 EL A £1. 409 ; 30
L. J. a B. 108; 132 B. B. 763;
Ckamhtf Oolliern Co, r. BoehdtJe
Canal Co., (IBM) A. C. 084; 84
L. J. a B. 646; New Mou Colliery
Co. V. iianthetltr, Sheffield, and
Lincolnshire Railmv '1897) 1
Ch. 728; 66 L. J. i n. 381. But
see Knowles v. Lanca$hire and Tork-
ehire Railway Co., lugra.

CUp. VI.
SMt S.

Option rawrTcd
to > conii«n; to
pu rcliue oat
iiiineraU witkia
a cartua

(A) Hilton v. Lord Oranvillt, 5
Q. B. 701 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 193 ;
64 E. B. 604 ; Blackett v. Bradley,
1 B. & S. 940; 31 L. J. a B. 6fi ;
124 B. R. 815; Bell v. Loit, 10
Q. B. D., p. 661 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.
290. See ButterknowU Colliery Co.
y. Biihop AtukUntd InduOrial Co.,
(1906) A. C. p. 331 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
841.

(/) As,»ten V. Seddnn, 1 Ex. D.,
p. 510 ; 46 Ij, .T. Ex, -'Wa,

(>») 1 B. &A(1.69; 8L. J. K. B.
361 ; 36 B. B. 212. Cf. Knotvltt <£

Subaidence
oaiucd by
ezcantioatof
predioiw b
titlt.

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

Ornf. VI. subsidence caused by the working of the mineruls by the pre-
^***- decesHOr in title of sue'' owner or lessee, although the damage
occurs after such owner or lessee came into possession (o).
UaiiwariCUiuM OenerftI provinions defining the reitpectire righti of mine
Aet''8'i'9°ViLi owners and railway compimips hiive been inserted in the Rail-
«. 20, •». 77— ways C lauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which Act creates a
special law by which the rights of the mine owner and railway
company arc regulated in respect of iiiines lying within the
forty yards or other prescribed limit of the railway (p). In
the case of purchases <>f land by railway cumiMinies, the minra
being reserved to the vendor, there is no grant by implication
of the ri^lit to have the surface supixii ted by the subjacent
minerals as is implied in the case of u grunt to an ordinary
purchaser, the mutual rights and obligations of the railway
eampnny and vendor with respect to the mines lying within
forty yards of the railway, or the other prescribed limit under
section 78 of this Act, being regulated by the mining sections
77 to 85 of this Act (q). The common law right of 8upi>ort by
soil other than minerals is not, however, takei away by the
Act even within the forty yards, and the common law right of
lateral support outside the forty yards remains, and will be
protected by injunction, whether the soil is or is not mineral.
Thus in a recent case an injunction was granted restraining
a colliery company from working their mines outside the limit
of forty yards from the plaintiff's railway line, in such a
manner as to withdraw lateral support from the railway (r).
Wtterworki In the caso of the purchase of the surface of land hy a water

L. J. Q. B. laS ; f.onduit and North
H'e»t Railway Cn. v. Aekroyd, 3t
L. J. Ch. 688 : North Britith Bail-
way Vo. V. Budkill Coal and Sand-
•tone Co., (1910) A. C. p. 136; 79
L. J. P. C. 31 ; London and North
Weatern Railway I'o. v. Howley
Park ChiI Co., (1911) 2 L'h. 97 ; 80
L. J. (_h. 537 ; (1913) A. f. 11 ; 82
L. J. Ch. 76 ; Re Earl ./ Carlialr and
Niirthampton County Council, supra.

(r) London and North Weitern
Bailieay Vo. v. Mowltj/ i'ark Coal
Co.,{m\) 2 Ch. pp. 7B. 110; 80

10*11 Vict. (") OretnntU v. Low Beediburu
e. 17, M. 18— Coal Co., (1897) 2 U. B. 166 ; 66 L. J.
^- Q. B. 643 ; Hatt v. Dukt of Norfolk,

(1900) 2 Ch. 493 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 571.

( p) 8 ft 9 Vict. c. 20, R8. 77—79 ;
London and North Weitern Railway
Co. V. ffowlfy Park Coal Co., (1911)
2 Ch. pp. 108, 1 10 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 537 ;
(1913) .\. C. U ; 82 L. J. Ch. 76.
See Re Karl of Carlitle and North-
temptan Cnunty Council, (1912) 105
L. T. 799 ; 10 L. G. E.. p. 66.

({) Great WeOern Railway Vo. v.
Bmnett, L. B. 2 H. L. 27, 40 . 36

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

cwnpsny under itH compulsory |K)wer«, the grantor reserving CW^ ?i.
the mines, there is no grant by implitution of ttie right to hare
the Burfuce supported by the BubjtCMit minerals, but the
mutual lights and obligations of the coinpjmy anii grantor.
wiUi respect to mines within the prescribed limit are regulated
by the mining seotiras of the Watflrworks Clauses Act.
1847 (v). Where a corporaiion, not having compulsory u«d p,„k,.«|
powers, purchased by agreement land mul tlic minerals there- '■yMwwiat.
under from A, and the adjacent land from li, who reserved the
riglit to work the mines luidemeath urithout making any eom-
pensation, it was held that the corporation were entitled to
an injunction restraining li s lessees from working the mines
either within or without the limit of forty yards from the cor-
poration's waterworks in such a way as to damage the land
purchased from A, on the ground that such land having been
bought by agreement, the corporation were entitled to the
same common law right of lateral support to the land from
th.3 minerals under B's land that A had enjoyed, and that this
common law right had not been taken away by the Water-
works Clauses Act, 1847 (t).

An ordinary conveyance of land includes the right s«tion 77,
to all minerals under the land, but by section 77 of the "^'*»JiCUBiM
Railways Cbusea Consolidation Act, 1845, mines of coal.'*'*'*'***
ironstone, slate or other minerals under lands purchased by
a railway company are excepted out of the conveyance to the
company, unless the same shall hare been expressly named
therein and conveyed thereby. The section is in substance
nothing more nor less than a clause enacting that a special
rale of construction shall apply to conveyances of land to a
ruilway company inverting the ordinary rules of c<mstruction
of such conveyances, mines being deemed to be excepted
unless expressly named a i conveyed (u).

J.. J. C'h. 637 ; (1913) A. C. 11 ; 82 chaUrCorportUi<m,{lO(»)A.C. 117-
" l^-- '' -f- 392; and see Zomfon

(») 106: U Viot 0. 17, M. 18-37. ond North Wmtim Bailway Co. v
Sec yaa Mom CMwry Co. y. ITm- IToisfay P^k Coal Co., (191 1) 2 Ch "
chetter Corporatim,. (19W) A. C, pp.m,l30; 80L.J.Ch.637

(0 Niw Mom CUhtrif 0». t. if on- Ok t. CkfpMt VniM CAma Ck^

NUISANCE8 TO SUPPORT.

Cli»i>. VI

Srrt 3.
What ia iii-

The word "mineH" in tho swction includon minemlt,
wht'thcr ffot by luulorgroiind, or by open working («).

In dtieiding wlietlier or not jjurticular ttubstancefl nre or are
not minemte within the mesning of sect. 77, the tPHt
applied l)y the Court is, arc tho milistiinpes in fnifKtii>n
" raineruls " as understo<xl in tho Vfrnueulur of the mining
and commercial worlds, and of landowners, at the time when
the land wus pin rliaHt'v' ? (y).

Thus, brii k clay forming the surface or subsoil of land (z).
a bed of flay or common brick earth pxtendinf; under the sur-
face of the land for a coiisidt-rable d.'i)th (</), sandstone as a
general rule (/»), "nd frt't^wtotu' («•), have been held not to be
minerals within the mt-uning of t.ie section. On the other
hand limestone (d), china clay not part of the ordinary com
position of tho soil, and occupying only a small fraction of the
subsoil (e). and seams of fireclay of exceptional character and
value for the manufacture of bricks capable of reeisting high
temperatures (/), hare been held to ibe minerals within the

r.,., (litlO) A. (.". sa; 7it L. J.
eh. 117; l.imilvnaud Xnrtli Wenteni
Jioiliiai/ V. Iluiihy I'urh Cual

(•„., (i»ii) 2 eh. pp. ioa, 112; 80

L. J. Ch. 537 ; (1913) A. C. p. 21 ;
82 L. J. Ch. p. 78.
(j) Midland Railway Co.

Hanmhu nal Tilt Co.. !» C. D. U2 ;

51 L. J. Ch. 778 ; .Midland Railway

Cu. V. /fcifci;.j<o/-,:{7C. D.;i87; 57 L.J.

I'h. 440 ; 15 A. V. 19 ; 59 L. J. Ch.

442; Ntrrth Ilritish Railimy Co. v.

Hiulhill Ciial and SaiitMime ('".,

(1910) A. C. p. 129; 79 h. J. 1'. ('. ai.

(y) Lord iV<n>«< of (IIih;iow v.
Farie, 13 A. C. p. 669; 58 L. J.
p. C. 33; North BrUi$h Bailway
Co. V. Budhill Cual and Smtdriatt
Co., (1910) A. C. 127; 79 L. J. P.C.
;il ; Caloiouiun llailu-ay Co. v. Olen-
1(1X1) L'liioii Fireclay rii.,(1911) A. ( '.,
p. 299 ; 80 li. J. P. C. 128 ; and seo
Symington y .Calrduniau Railti ay Co.,
(iai2) A. C. p. 92; 81 L. J. 1' C. l.-W.
(«) Lord PrwMut of aUugow r.

Farie, tiipra ; Orrat IlMtern Rait-
nay Co. V. /(W«, (1901)2 Ch. 824;
70 L. J. Ch. 847. !See .^key v.
I'arKOM, (1909) 101 L. T. loa; 25
T. L. R. 7'/H.

(n) Toild Ilirletiime ' 'o. v. North
Ka»ter„ Railway Co., (1903) 1 K. B.
603 : 73 L. J. K. B. 337.

(&) North Rritith Bailwag Co. t.
Budhill Coal and BandtloHt Co.,
(1910) A. C. 116 ; 79 L. J. P. C. 31,

((■) Symliiyton v. Caledonian Kail-
way Co., (1912) A. C. 87, 92; 81
L. J. P. C. 155 ; Freestone may Vk
a mineral, though seldom likely ti
be 80 regarded, ib.

(</) Miilland Railway Co. v. Robin
mm, la A. C. 19 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 442

(e) Ortat TI'Mtern Railway Co. »
Cari>alla United China Clay Co.

(1909) 1 Ch. 218; 78 L. J. Ch. 106

(1910) A. C. 83 : 79 L. J. Ch. 117.
(/) CoUdiiiiinn Railway Co. ^

Ulenbiiig Vnimt Fireclay Co., (1911
A. 0. 390 ; 80 L. J. P. C. 128.

NUI8AM0B8 TO 8UPP0RT.

n.caning of the ser ion. In every case it is »qu rtko of f»ct Ch^T!.
whether the ptrtieukr tubflUnce is, or is not, a mineral {g) . **** '•

Sect. 78 providM that the mines under the line, or within
forty yards tlMMfraa, ihiUl not bs worlud If tb* oompuiy Sm. 71.

are willing to pay eom|)en8Btion for the rainerala to the owner.
Before proceeding to work them, the owner is required to give
thirty dajre* notice of hit intentifm to do so to the company,
so ns to j-ive the cot pany the power of exercising the option.
The company may then give a counter-notice of their » '
nees to pay eompoiMtion for the minerBla, and if
minoral owner is not to work them (*). The righta . • /
this section to the railway company are in Hubstitiition for the
common tow right to support, whether vertical or lateral,
« thin the forty yarda limit. It is only within that limit that
the railway company can claim the right to pay compensation
without actually purchasing the CMnerals. Beyond the forty
yards the owner can work without giving the thirty days'
nnticp, and no count€r-notice can be given by the company.
Compensation payable under the section is only for minerals
within the forty yards {»). A railway company by paying
l ompensation under the secticm to a mineral lessee for leaving
tlie minerals under the line, acquires the right to support from
such minerals, and the right to ree »in the reversioner on the
surrender or determination of t aaae from working the
minerals, without prejudi' o to an; .;iestion as to compwwa-
tion, having regard to the paj-.uent already made (k).
By sect. 79 it is ensfM that if the company do not a-t. 79.

(y) See .VortA /t. iish Railway
V. Builhill f'.Kil and Sand«toi:e
'•o., (1910) A. C. 116; 79 L. J.
I', r. 31 ; Symington Oalmhmiam
Railway Co., (1912) A. C. p. 93.

(A) 8m Midkmd BaUway Co. y.
Robitutm, 37 0. D. 387 ; 57 L. J.
Ch. 440 ; 16 A. C. 19 ; 59 L. J. Ch.
H2 ; Xorth liriti^h Railii '11 y I'o, V.
Ilmlhill Coal and Sariditoite Co.,
(1910) A. C. p. 126; 79 L. J. P. C.
ai ; Orfit H'eaiera Railway Cv. Y.
CarjMUa Uniltd CMm Cfay Cin,

K.I.

(1910) A. C. p. 85; 79 L. J. Ch.
117; London and IToHk WMhm
Railway Co. t. BowUg Park Coal
Co., (IMl) 2 Ob. pp. lOe, 110, 116 ;
00 L. J. Oh. 537; (1913) A. 0. U ;
82 L. J. Ch. 76.

(«') London and North ITeifcrtt
Railimy Co. v. Howhy I'ark Coal
Co., siiyra.

[k) Smith V. Ortat Wtitem Jtail-
'fay Co., 3 A. 0. p. m; 47 L. J.
Ch. 97.

IS

226

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

Ch»p. VI.

i M

Right of pur-
ehuorof miiwr-
Aooui Undi to
rapport.

Saet*. 77—79.

within thirty days state their willingness to purchase the
minerals, the owner may work the mines so that the working

be done in a manner proper and necessary for the beneficial
working thereof and according to the usual working of such
mines in the district where the same shall be situate, any
damage done to the railway by improper working being
repaired at the expense of the owner. Under this section the
owner of the mine has a statutable right as against the railway
company to work the mines, and the Court will not restrain
him from working them except upon condition that compensa-
tion be made to him for his loss in not working them (l). A
purchaser of superfluous land from a railway company
acquires no greater right to support than the company hod in
respect of such land (m).

In construing sects. 77—79, the Exchequer Chamber in
Fletcher v. Great Western Railway Co. (n), held that a
mine owner was entitled to claim compensation for such
minerals lying within forty yards as he might leave ungotten
for the purpose of furnishing support to the railway. " All
that the railway company requires," said Cockburn, C. in
delivering the judgment of the Court (o), " is the surface
soil : it may be that the minerals will never be worked by the
landowner, in which case the company ought not to be subject
to any expense ; and, therefore, the legislature interposes and
says that the company shall be under no obligation to pay the
landowner for that which may never be required: but if flie

(/) Stourhridye Canal Co. v. Karl
of Didley, 3 El. & El. 409 ; 30 L. J.
Q. B. 108; Flttclierv. Grmt WnOrn
Railii ay Co., 5 H. & N. «H9 ; 29
li. J. Ex. 253 ; Bagnall v. Londm
and North Weitem Bailway Co., 1
H. ft C. 6M ; 31 L. J. Ex. 480;
Ortat Werfem Sailwat/ Co. v. Ben-
Hta, L. B. 2 H. L. 27 ; 36 L. J.
Q. B. 33 ; Rmhon ttride Co. v. (irtat
WuUrn liailway Co., (189.'!) 1 Ch.
427 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 483 ; and scp
K'hn ¥. Sr-ri't EasUrn Ihihi-ny '',>.,
(1907) A. C. u. 407 ; 76 L. J. K. B.

940; f.ondnn and Vortk Wettem
Raitirai/ Co. v. Unirlrjf Purit CmI
Co., note (A), iupra,

(m) I'oiintney v. Clayton, HQ.
B. D. 820 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 666.
See London and North WWwii
BaUimy Co. v. Hoinky Park Coal
Co., (1811) 2 Ch. p. 121 ; 80 L. J.
Ch. 537.

(n) 5 H. 4 N. 689 ; 29 L. J. Ex.
253.

(o) a H. & N. pp. 698, 699 ; 29
L. J. Ex. p. 2S4.

i

i 1

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

227

mines come to be worked and the company requires them as Clop. VI.
necessary for the support of the surface, they must make com- »•
pensation to the landowner. The very fact that provision is
made by the 78th section for possible injury to the railway,
shows that the legislature intended to reserve the question of
support and compensation. The legislation would be incom-
plete, if it were not applicable to the case of a landowner, who.
having parted with the surface soil to be used by a company
for the purpose of putting an additional weight upon it, as a
railway company must necessarily do, shall afterwards enter-
tain an idea of working the mines under or in the neigh-
bourhood of a railway. The minerals are reserved to the
landowner, and the railway company is under no obligation
of making any compensation in respect of them, until the
necessity for it arises from his desire to work them. In such
a case the company are to consider whether the working is
liable to damage the railway, and then if they are willing to
make such compensation for the mines, the owner is not to
work them. The mines may never be worked, and it would
I'e a great hardship on a railway company if, upon a specu-
lative poesibility, they were bound to make compensation for
not working them. Such is the plain, intelligent, and equit-
able construction of these clauses, and one which is consistent
with the scope of the Act" (;;). Jn London ami North
Western Railway Co. v. Ackroyd (q). accordingly, Wood,
V.-C, refused to restrain a mine owner from working coal
within forty yards of a tunnel of the plaintiffs, who en-
deavoured to establish a right to support without making
compensation. But if a mine owner proceeds to work his
(p) See Ortnt HVifm. Bailway A. C. p. 407 ; 70 L. J K B 940 •
.m L. J. Q. B. 33; Smith t>i/t r,„/ ro.,{mo) A.C. m 130-

.V(.,.l65;4,L.J.Ch.97:/.m/ Xarth HWn gaUwo^ Co. y
t V. farie. i;j Howle„ Park C\»l O,. (1911) 2

« - /M; etc.. Co. V. Ormt «37: (1913) A. C. p 21 • 82 I T
llf-rfer,, BaUwag Co., (1893) 1 tSi. Ph. 7« ' '

V (9) 31 L. J. Ch. 588.

.VwM Aotfem iCsttuay Co., (We")

16-2

228

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

CInik VI.
Sect 8.

Power of i»U-
way company to
purchase
mineraU before
expinUioo of
compalaory
powen.

Purchase \<y
railway coiU'

— J —
pany after
completioii of
railway.

Pablic Health
Act, 1875.
Support for
HWer.

mines within the specified distance, without giving notice to

the company of hia intention to do so, as required either by
thr special Act, or by sect. 78 of the Railways Clauses Con-
solidation Act, he will be restrained by injunction (r).

A railway company, having the usual power to purchase
land under its special Act, has power also to purchase the
minerals under those lands at any time before the expiration
of the time limited for the exercise of its compulsory powers,
and the power is not taken away by sect. 77 and the follow-
ing sections of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, which
are for the benefit not of the mine owner but of the company ,
and only exempt the company from the obligation of buying
the minerals at once together with the surface land (,s-). A
railway company may also at any time after the due com-
pletion of its railway, jHirchase under its general statutory
powers the minerals under its line, if thought advisable in
the interests of its undertaking (t).

The Public Health Act, 1875, imposes on landowners
through whose land a sewer is laid under that Act, an liga-
tion to preserve to such sewer subjacent support, and gives
them a right to immediate compensation for being deprived
of free power to work subjacent mines, but not for the risk
of percolation of sewage into the subjacent mines (m). But
by the Public Health Act, 1875 (Support of Sewers), Amend-
ment Act, 1883, which incorporates sects. 18—27 (both
inclusive) of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, with respect
to mines, the rights and liabilities of a local authority and of a
landowner with respect to support from mines now depend
upon the mineral code contained in sects. 18—27 and ntt on
the principles of the common law. By this code the landowner
is bound before working the mines subjacent and adjacent to
sanitary works, to give notice to the local authority, and the

(r) Elliot v. North Eattem Bail-
tmg Co., 10 H L. C. 333 ; 32 L. J.
Ch.402.

(•) Erriiiyton v. Metr(^>litan Di»-
trirt Railwiuj Co., 19 C. D. 559; 61
L. J. Ch. .JO J.

{<) Thiimjiion V. Hirkman, (1907)

1 Ch fp. m, 661 ; 76 L. J. Ch.
254.

(m) Corporation of Dudlofr. Dud-
leg't TrnUtu, 8 Q. B. D. 86 ; 61
L. J. Q. B. 121. See Jary v.

Ihitii^tiij Curjwiitf'ii, (lyoT) 'i Ch.
p. 615 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 593.

NUISANCES TO SUPPORT.

local authority thereupon has an option to acquire or take and
use the minerals within a certain distance of their sanitary
works, making compensation for them, and so obtain support
for their works. If the option of the local authority is not
exercised, the landowner may work his mines, though he must
not wilfully damage the works or work his mines in an
unusual way.

229

Ch«p. VL
SaeLS.

SECTION 4.— NUISANCES RELATING TO WATEB.

Anothbb class of nuisances against which the protection of
the Court by way of injunction is often sought, are nuisances
relating to water. All acts done by a man on his own land,
wherei)y the rights of his neighbour in water are injuriously
affected, or whereby water becomes a cause of damage to the
land of his neighbour, piay be considered together as nuisances
relating to water.

Primd facie, every proprietor of land along the margin of a Bed of rim.
non -tidal (x) river or stream of running water is the pro-
prietor of the land covered by the water up to the medium
fihim of the stream (y). If the same person be the owner
of the land on both sides of the river, the presumption is that
he owns the bed of the whole river to the extent of the length
of his land ui)on it (z), and has the usual rights of a land-

(.'■) As to wheu a river in " nou-
tiilul " in the proper sense of the
tci ni. see Reece v. Miller, 8 Q. R D.
•iiO; 51 h. J. M. C. 64; TurMir*
Wat Riding Bivrri Board v. Tad-
eatter Rural CounnI, (1897) 97 L. T.
iM; Jme»y. T.lanrwst I'rlnn Coun-
nI. (1911) 1 Ch. p. 401; 80 h. J.
C'h. 145.

('/) Orr-Kiriiuj v. Ct^quhonn, 2
A. V. y. 8o4; Ureut Tvrrin;,toti
I uiisen;,turs v. Mi.orr Stevens, (1904)
1 < 'h. p. .153; 73 L. J. Ch. 124;
if'lntmortt{Edtnlfridgf) Oo. r. Stan-
ford, (1909) 1 Oh. p. 484; 78 L. J.
Ch. 144; /OHMT. LUumMt Urham

Vouueil, tupru; and see Central
London Battway Co. v. City of Lon-
dm Land Tax CommittioHert, (1911)
a Ch. pp. 473. 474 ; 80 L. J. Ch.
348; (1913) A. C. p. r.1; 88
T. L. fi. p. 396.

{z) Wriijht v. Iluirard, 1 Sim. &
St. 190; 1 L. J. Ch. 94; 24 B. E.
169; Bickett y. Morrit, li. B. 1
II, L. 47 (Sc.); Jona v. ni/Uamt,
2 M. & W. 326 ; 6 L. J. (N. a) Bx,
107; 46 B. B. 611; Caldwell v.
Madartn, 8 A. C. p. 404; 53 L. J.
P. C. 33. See, as to soil of lukes,

Ailtow f. Oormiean, 3 A. C. 666;

•/«k«N*M T. ffNtiU, (18U) A. 0.

230

NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.

Chap. VI.
Beet. 4.

ArtificimI
watenoune.

owner in respect of the same. But this is subject to all the
rights of the owners above him to have the water flow away
from their land, and to all the rights of the owners below him
to have the water come to their land as it was wont, and it is
also subject to any rights the public may have over it (a).
Where a river was divided into two streams by an island, and
the defendant, a riparian owner, claimed to remove soil from
the bed of the river at a spot nearer to the island than to the
plaintiffs' bank of the river, the medium filum was drawn
not through the island, but through the stream between the
island and the plaintiffs' land, and their action for an injunc-
tion to restrain the defendant's acts failed (b). A grant of
land bounded u\Mn a stream or river above tide-water carries
the soil up to the centre of the stream, unless there is enou^
in the surrounding circumstances in relation to the property
in question or enou^ in the expressions of the instrument to
show that such was not the intention of the parties (c).

Where an old artificial watercourse, the origin of which is
unknown, passes throu^ tiie lands of several proprietors, the

552 ; (I'Jl'i) 81 L. J. P. C. 1717 ;
and att to the ordinary meauinj; of
"bed of river," see Thames Voii-
lervaton v. Samd <b Co., (1897) 2
a B. 334 ; 66 L. J. K. B. 716 ;
Joiies V. Llanrwtt Urban CouneU,
(1911) 1 Ch. p. 401; 80 L. J. Ch.
p. 149.

(a) Cat'lwell v. Macin m, 9 A. C.
404 ; 53 J. P. C. as. See Vear
V. I'iftero, (1911) 27 T. L. R. 558 ;
65 8. J. 688.

(6) Qrtat Turrington Couiervaion
V. Moore St*>mi. (1904) 1 Ch. 347 ;
T.J L. J. Ch. 124.

(r) Lord v. Communoner* of
Si/Jney, 12 M o. P. C. 473 ; Mickle-
thiraite v. Seivlay lirUlye Co., 3U
V. D. p. 145 ; 5.1 L. T. 366 ; /hike of
Iknmaliire v. I'attinsoii, 20 Q. U. I).
263 ; 57 I.. J. Q. B. 189 ; Pryor v.
Pctrr, (1894) 2 Ch. p. 25; 63 L. J.
Ch. S31 (C. A.); Tilbury v. Silia,
46 C. D. 98; 62 L. T. 364; In ri

n'hite'i Charities, (1898) 1 Ch.
p. 664 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 430; Mellor v.
W'almesky, (1905) 2 Ch. pp. 179, 180;
74 L. J. Ch. 476; CktUtrfiM
'{LorSs T. Harris, (1908) 2 Ch.
p. 406; 77 L. J. Ch. 688; Portstnouth
WaUrutorks Co. v. Loinlon, Briylilmi,
etc.. Railway Co., (1910)26 T. L. R.
173. Cf. Ki-roydv. i'onllhanl, (1897)
2 Ch. 555 ; 66 L. J. Ch. "51 ; (1898)
2 Ch. 358; 67 L. J. Ch. 458 ; fol-
lowed in Hough V. Clark, (1907) 23
T. L. B. p. 68:), where it waa
decided that the praaumption that
the bed of a rivw flowing tbrouj^
the waate of a manor was part of
the manor waa rebutted, where
there waa a Roveral fishery in the
river, and nee Tracey.Elliutt v. Karl
Mtirley, (1907) 51 S. J. 625. Ah to
pleading the title to the bed of a
stream, see Pltdgt v. Pon^ref, (1906)
74 L. J. Ch. Vn-, M L. T. 680;
W. N. 66.

NUIBANCE8 RELATING TO WATER.

2&1

presumption ia, that thb watercourse was originally con- ci«p.vi.

atructed for the use of all the riparian proprietors, and that

each proprietor owns the bed of the channel adjoining his

land (d).

If from any cause the cours«> of a stream should be per- Direnion of

mujiently diverted, the propri^toi an either side of the old
channel have a right to use the soil of the alveus, each of them
up to what was the medium filum aqua, in the same way as
they are entitled to use the adjoining land; but no riiKirian
proprietor ia entitled to use his property in the alveut ii such
a manner as to interfere with the it\tural flow oi the stream
or to cause an injury to the proprietary rif^ts of »r>v other
riparian proprietor (e).

There ia no distinction in principle between riparian righta Eight* of
on the banks of navigable, and on those of non-narigable »wo«*
rivers. In the former case, however, there must be no inter-
ference with the right of navigation, and in order to give rise
to riparian rights the land must he in actual daily contact with
the stream, laterally or vertically (/).

A proprietor of land upon the banks of a ri -er or stream of
running water has no prope'-ty in the water, but has merely a
usufructuary interest in the water, as appurtenant to his land.
He ia entitled to the comfort, enjoyment, and benefit of the
water in its natural state, as it flowa past his land, as he is to
all the other advantages belonging to the land of which he is
owner The right is not a right of property, but is a
nati ral right (h), and does pot depend on the ownership of

{il) ]\'hitmores{Kdenbrid I'] Co. \. S'.il ; Chiserrnre v. liichnrth, 7

Sianjord, (1909) 1 Ch. p. 435; 78 TI. L. C. 349; 9.9 L. J. Ex. 81 ; 115

L. J. Vh. 144. R. B. 187 ; Sharp v. Wilson, (1904)

(f) Biikett V. Morris, L. R. 1 21 T. L. B. 679 ; 93 L. T.

H. L. (Sc.) 47, S8 ; Orr-Eutins v. 165 ; Edintmrgh Water Truttees

Colquhoun, 2 A. 0. p. Ml. BmmmiUe (1906), M L. T. S

(/) iyon V. Fiihmangtn' Co., I (H. L. Sc.); WkUt t. Whitt, (IW ,

A. C. p. 674 ; 4(J L. J. Ch. 68 ; A. C. 72 ; 78 L. J. P. C. 14 ; Pirie

Xoiil, Sliin't Railway Co. V. Pion,U * Co. v Kintore {Earl), (1906)

A. V. 612; 39 L. J. P. 0. 25. A. C. 484 ; 75 L. J. P. C. 96 ; Joi.ea

((/) .\tatoii V. Hill, 5 B. & Ad. 1 ; v. Llanrwst Urban Council, (1911)

2L. J. ;N. S.)K. n. 118: 39B. B. 1 Ch. 393. 402: 80 L. J. Ch.

354 ; Emhrty v. Oiwen, 6 Ex. 145

369 ; 20 L. J. Kx. 212 ; 86 R. B. (A) MantU v. VaUey Printing

282

NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.

*ftrt ^ ' **** water, but is appurtenant to the owner-

— — ship of the bank (i). The rights which a riparian proprietor

has with respect to the water i-i a stn mi are derived from Lis
possession of the land abutting on lue water. If a riparian
proprietor grants away tmy portion of his land abutting aa the
river, tlie grantee becomes a riparian proprietor and has the
right b of a riparian proprietor. These riparian rights need
not be granted in express terms, as they are part of the fee
simple and inheritance of the land conveyed (A If a riparian
owner grants away a portion of his estate not abutting on the
river, the grantee acquires no water rights. A riparian pro-
prietor ctuinot grant away his water rights apart from his
estate so as to place the grantee in the same position with
respect to the other riparian proprietors as he occupied him-
self. If a riparian proprietor grar^a to one not a riparian
proprietor a right to take water from the stream, the grantee
cannot maintain an action in his own name against other
riparian proprietors. He can only sue the grantor for an
interference with his enjoyment (7).
Risiiu of A riparian owner is not entitled to abstract water from a

rii«mn owmh. natural stream for purposes foreign to or unconnected with
his riparian tenement. Such a user can only be justified by
a grant from lower riparian owners or by prescription (to).
Railway companies accordingly have been restrained from
taking water from rivers to supply their locomotiTes along
their lines ( n) , and a waterworks compuiy has been restrained

Co., (1908) 2 Ch. p. 448 ; 77 L. J. Rraceirell, L. R. 2 Ex. 1 ; 36 L. J.

Ch. 742. Ex. 1 ; HMer v. I'orrilt, L. E. 10

(i) HW V. Il ofc/, 3 Ex. 748; 18 Ex. 61, 63; 44 L. J. Ex. 52;

L. J. Ex. 306; 77 B. E. 809; Lord Ormerol \. Totlmordeu J,iiU Co.. 11

V. Coinmimumera of Sydney. 12 Q. B. D. 135 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 445 ;

MdO. V. V. 473 ; Lyon v. t'M- and see Mi Cartney v. Lmdondtrry,

nioxyfcs' r,)., 1 A. C. pp. 673, 683 ; etc.. Railway Co., (1904) A. 0.

46 li. J. t'h. (iK, Jone» v. Ltanrwtt p. 316; 73 L. J. p. C. 73.
Vrhnn Council, (1911)1 Ch. p. i(»; (m) UeCkMim/ y. LaidoHderry,

80L. J. Ch. 146. ttr., Saitwa^ Co., (19M) A. C.

(ft) PorhtiumtK Wattrvmrkt Co. v. pp. 306, SIS ; 73 L. J. P. 0. 73.
London, BrighUm, etc.. Railway Co., (n) AH.-Oen. v. Great Eastern

(1910) 26 T. L. E. 173. Railway Co.. 6 Ch. 572 ; 19 W. R.

(!) Stockport Waterworks Co. v. 'SS; see McCartney v. Londondtrry,

Potter, 3 H ft 0. 300; Niittalt v. etc.. Railway Co., (1904) A. C. 301 ;

NUISANCES RELATING TO V//iTER.

233

from diverting water from a stream for the supply of the Oh«p. Vi.
inhabitants of a neighbouring town (o). 8«et.4.

Whei-o, however, a riparian proprietor granted a licence to
an owner of land not abutting on the river to abstract water
from the sfa-eam by a pijje inserted in the stream on the
licensor's land, and after using it the licensee roturned it to
the stream undiminished in quantity and undeteriorated in
quality before the stream left the land of the licensor, the
Court refused to grant a lower riparian proprietor an injunc-
tion against the licensee or his licensor (p). But a riparian
proi)rietor has a right of action against a non-riparian pro-
prietor who takes water from a streain under a grant or licence
from a riparian proprietor, if his user of the water sensibly
affects the flow or the quality of the water of the stream j).

A riparian proprietor has a right to the fall and flow of the Bighti of
water and to the impelling force of the current for mill or '■'•^•■^
other manufacturing purposes; and as incident thereto he
has a right to erect dams, sluices, canals and watei-ways so
as to fit the stream for the actual working of mills; but he
may not, in doing so, accelerate the velocity of the current,
BO a.s to cause material injury or annoyance to his neighbour
below him, who has an equa rig^t to the subsequent use of
the same water in its natural state, or retard or diminish the
flow, or throw back the water so ,m injuriously to affect the
grounds, mills or springs of his neighbour above him {;•;.

"a L. J. P. C. 73; Betllery. (heat (r) JVright v. Howard, 1 Sim. &

H. L. 697; ib L. J. Ch. 638; L. J. C. P. 363; Embny v. Owtn,

soe McCartney v. LondonJtrry, 6 Ex. 369; 20 L. J. Ex. 212- 86

Jtailway Co., (1904) A. 0. p. 314 ; B. B. 331 ; Orr-Ewing v. Colquh'oun,

73 L. J. p. c. 73. 2 A. C. 839, Lord Bkckbu. n ;

(/>) Kentit V. Great Kastern Bail- John Yomg cfe ('o.\ Baiikier Dia-

V'lH Co., 27 C. D. 122 ; 54 L. J. Ch. tillern Co., (1893) A. C. 691 ; Sharp

19; soe MeCorfiiey v. Lmdonderrij, v. Wilson, (1904) 21 T. L. E 679-

<:l<; Itailway Co., (1904) A. C. 93 L. T. 155; White v. Whiti,

V- ai3; 73 L. J. P. C. 73. (1906) A. C. 72, 80; 75 L. J. P. C.

('/) Ormer,d v. Todmorden Mill 14; /"tne it Co. v. KirUore (Enrl),

<■".. UQ.B.D.IM; ML.J.aB. (1906) A. C. p. 484 ; 74 L. J. A 0.

Wtslrrn Railway Co., (1907) 96
T. ]). 100.

St. 203 ; 1 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 94 ; 24
R. E. 169 ; Mason v. Hill, 5 B. ft
A. 19; 2 L. J. (N. a) KB. 118; M
R. R. 354; Qaved v. MaHyn, 34

NUISANCES BELATINO TO WATER.

Chap. VI.
Baei. 4.

This is the elear and settled principle on the sabjeet, but
-there is often difficulty in the application of it. A certain
diminution in the quantity of the water, or an acceleration
or retudation of the flow, is generally an implied element in
the right of using the stream at all, but de minimis non
curat lex, and unless the use be such aw to iffcct miitorially
the adjoining proprietor, a right of action will not arise.
The test in all cases is whether the extent or mode of enjoy-
ment has been such as to inflict a jwsitivo or sensible injury
upon other riparian proprietors, or to interfere in a sub-
stantial and perceptible degree with their common rigLi; to
a like user of the same water (m). So long as a reasonable
user is made by a man of the water, and no actual or per-
ceptible damage arises to the right of another to a similar use
of the same water, no action will lie (/)• If, however, the
user be unreasonable, and the defendant claims to do the act
complained of as a matter of right, an action will lie although
there be no actual present damage (u).

f.iinilon, Brighton and South Coast injunction, the plaintiff having

Haihimj Co., (1910) 26 T. L. H.
IT.i; see Fair \. I'ickem, (MUl) 'J7
T. L. R. 6.)8 ; 56 S. J. 6NK (C. A.).
See, as to throwing back water.
Cooper V. Barber, 3 Taunt. 99 ; 12
B. B. 604 ; Sautider* r. Nniman, 1
B. & Aid. 2M ; 19 B. B. 312.
(() Embrty v. Owen, 6 Ex. 353 ;

20 L. J. Ex. 312 ; 86 B. B. 331 ;
Eldedon v. Crouley, 18 L. T.
16 ; Sami aoH v. UoddmaU, 1 C. B.
N. S. 590 ; 2« L. J. C. P. 148 ; 1(»7
R. R. 809 ; Sharp v. ll't7»on, (1904)

21 T. L. R. 679; 93 L. T. 155;
McCartney v. Limihnidernj, etr.,
Railway Co., (1904) A. C. p. 313;
73 L. J. P. C. 73; RobtrU r.
FeUowu, (19C3) 94 I.. T. 279;
Whitmaru {Edeniridgt) Co. v. Stan-
ford, (1909) I Ch. p. 439 ; 78 L. J.
Ch. 14-J ; and see Hanhury v. Llan-
frechfa Urban Council, (1911) 9
L. 0. R. p. 365 ; 75 J. P. p. 303,
where a declaration of right was
made with liberty to apply for an

KufTered no actual damage.

(<) Kmbrey V. Owen, lujira ; Baity
V. Clark, (1902) 1 Ch. 649 ; 71 L. J.
Ch. 396 ; Robertty. Feltoires, tufira;
McCartneij v. Londonderry, etc.,
Railu ay Co., (1904) A. C. p. 307 ;
73 L. 3. P. C. 73; Whitmort$
{Edenbridife) Co. v. Stanford, (1909)
1 Ch. p. 439 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 144.

(k) Embrey y. Oiven,tupra ; Att.-
(Jen. V. (Irtai Eastern Railtiay Co.,

6 Ch. p. 677; 19 W. R. 788;
Sicinilcn Waterworks Co. v. Wilit
and Berks Canal, etc., Co., L. B.

7 H. L. p. 705 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 638 ;
Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co., 11
Q. B. D. p. 159; S3 L. J. Q. B.
443 ; Baily \. Clark, lupra ; Sharp
V. Wilion, (19(M) 21 T. L. B. 679 ;
93L.T. 185; McCartney \. Lomlim-
derry, etc.. Railway Co. ,{1904) A.V.
p. 310 ; 73 L. J. P. C. 73 ; Roberle
V. Fdic.res, (19tic) 04 L. T. p. 281 ;
and see Hanbiiry v. Uat^recl^fa
Urban Counril, tupra.

NUISANCES RKLATINO TO WATEB.

Whether the user of the water by an upper proprietor he ci*P- VI.
reoMmBble i« generally a qaestion of fact depending on the *"

pnrticular cirfuiiistuneeH of the case. Enjoyment of water hrdom«tto'
foi' cattle or domestic purposes may be called the ordinary
«»er. However small the stream, and however large the
MU])jily taken may l)e, user for these purposes is always
reasonable, provided the enjoyment is bond fide and is had in
the ordinary mode according to the common usage of the
country. A proprietor lower down the stream haa no ground
of complaint against a proprietor higher up in case of o
deficiency of the water (x). A riparian owner may also use Userof w«ur
the water for manufacturing or agricultural purposes, which {^jSJlSJ'**"
may be called the " extraordinary user." Such user must Hri««tt"«l
be reasonable, and the purposes for which the water is taken
must be connected with the owner's riparian tenement, and
the water must be restored substantially undiminished in
volume and unaltered in character (.y). The right to a reason-
able use of the water of a stream being common to all riparian
proprietors, it is often difficult to determine whether a par-
ticular lise is consistent with this common right. In deter-
mining the question a just regard must be had to the force
and magnitude of the current, the volume of water, iis height
and velocity, the fall, the nature of the soil, the mode and
duration of the user, the general usage of the country, and
all other circumstances which may, in a particular case, bear
upon the question. To take a large quantity of water from a
large river for manufacturing or agricultural purposes would
ctfusv no sensible or perceptible diminution of the benefit to
the prejudice of a lower proprietor, whereas taking the same
quantity from a small stream passing a farm would be a great
und manifest injury to those below who use it for domestic
supply and to water cattle; and therefore it would be an

(j) Minrr v. QUmimir, 12 Moo. (1904) A. C pp. 306, .307 ; 73 L. J.

r. t'. l.il, as modified by Lwd Ch. "3; Jivberti v. Fetlowa {1906),

Xi rhiiri/ V. Kiti hen, 9 Jur. N. 8. 132 ; 94 L. T. 279.

ll'wW V. Waiid, 3 Ex. p. 781 ; 18 (y) MeCaHnty v. Londonihny,

L. J. Ex. 305; 77 R. R. 809; etc., Jiaitway Co.,i,ijra; Sltmp y.

yuttall V. Braetwdi, L. B. 2 Ex. 1 ; Wiltm, (1904) 31 T. L. B. p. 680;

36 L. J. Ex. 1; MeCartntg v. 93L.T. IM.
Londimderrfi, ek., BailvM^ Co.,

886

NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.

CU^ VI.

Otrmtioa el
water.

Interferenc*
with |iung« of
salmoa.

unreu»tonul>le use of tlie wtit«r in tlio liitter case, and not in
the former. The queetion in each esse is entirely one of

dogree. It is iin|)OHsil)lo to doflno prttist'Iy the iiiiiits wli i h
Boparute the |)erinitted use of u stream from itf- wrongful
application (z).

A riparian proi)ri4'tor has no ri(»l»t to divert any part of the
water of a stream into a course different from tJiat in which
it has been accustomed to flow, for ivny purj^se to the pre-
judice of any other riparian proprietor. The upper of two
riparian proprietors on the sunie .stream may divert the water
on hia own land by an artificial ciiannel, provided he restore
it to the natural channel before it leaves his land, with reason-
able care and prudence and without injury to the lower
riparian proprietors. Hut the diversion by a riparian pro-
prietor of any portion of the stream without returning the
water to its natural channel before it leaves his land is an
unlawful user, if any other riparian proprietor is prejudiced
thereby («). Thus, the diversion of the water of a stream
to such an extent as to leave the natural channel at times bare
of water, thereby interferinf,' with the jjassago of salmon up
a river will be restrained as an improper uaer of the stream
and a wrong against the owners of the upper fisheries (b).
So also, the diversion of water from a stream for the purpose

(z) Kmbrey v. Oictn, 6 Ex. 3«9 ; 910 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 191 ; 26 B. B.

S79 ; Samp»im t. HcddinaU, I C. B.
N. S. 390 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 148; 107
B. H. 809.

(a) I.uttreti <'ase, 4 Co. Rep.
8(j b ; Ikah)! v. Shan; (i l-:a»t, 208 ;
S R. R. !««; Wright v. lloiiard, 1
Sim. & St. 190; 1 h. J. Ch. 94 ; 24
R. R. Kii); Ftrruiiii v. /IrwI/irrd
Corpiiraiiun, 21 Beav. 412 ; 111 B. B.
144.

(6) I'irie Jc Co. v. KilUon {Earl),
(1906) A. C. p. 484 ; 73 L. J. P. C.
90 ; and 8ee Hanhury v. IJan/rnh/a
L'pjitr I'Tban Viuncil, (1911) 9
L. O. R. aOO ; 75 J. V. 307 ; see
liaiker v. Faulkner, (ISOs) 79 L. T.
24; W. N. 69 (eraetton of w«in}.

. ) L. J. Ex. 212 ; 86 B. B. 331 ;

Htrindon Wattrworku To. v. Xfiltt
and Btrlft Canal Co., L. B. 7 H L.
1>. 704 ; 45 I,. J. Ch. »i38 ; «ee
Oriiieioil \. Toilmiinlen Mill Co., II
Q. B. I). 155 ; 5J L. J. Q. It. 445 ;
IMfiiat Co. V. Boyil, 11 L. R. Ir.
5(iO; .Mostyii v. Atlierttm, (1899) 2
Ch. 360; US I... J. Ch. 629; JiaUy
T. Clark, (1902) I Ch. 649 ; 71 L. J.
Ch. 396; Sharp r. WUmM, (1904)
21 T. L. B. 679 ; 93 L. T. 153;
McCariney v. Londonderry, etc.,
Hailu-ny Co., (1904) A. C. 306 ; 73
C. J. Ch. 73. See ati to the dett'ii-
tion of water, Shears v. if'ft/rf, 7
Moo. 345 ; 1 h. J. ((). S.) C. P. 3 ;
ll'iMiunu T. Marland, 2 B. & C.

NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.

287

of 8u, .plying a neighbouring town (c) or a county gaol (d), ciup. vi.
or the locomotires of a milwsy oomiMny along their line (e), ***•*'
is an uniuwful user of the water vbiob baa bem reetrained

hy injunction.

A local authority haa no power under sect. 51 of the Public Ait.r.ii«, of
Health Act, 1875, for the purpose of supplying water to its bjhlij**^

district, to alter the flow of water in u streum, without the •■»fc«»»)r.
consent in writing of the riijurian proprietors lower down the
M ic.iin, as required l)y .sedion 382 of the Act. By so altering
the flow of water the local authority is " injuriously affecting "
within the meaning of section 332, the common law rights
of such riparian proprietors and will be restrained from so
iloing, without proof of sensible damage caused thereby (/),
nor has a local authority power under the Public Health Act,'
1876, to grant a licence to a stranger to take water from a
|»iil)lic well for commercial purposes (ff).

Riparian owners are entitled, except so far as their rights Right..!
are varied by statute, or other »,,ecial .. ircumstances. to iiS'STS;
r. quire that nothing shall be done to affect to their prejudice
tho quantity or the quality of a stream as it flows in its natural
state, and when an Act of Parliament authorises an inter-
ference with the natural How of a stream, the original rights
of tile rijmrian owners are impaired only so far as the reascm-
al)le exercise of the statutory rights impairs them (h), and
the owner's remedy is under the compensation claus^ of
the Act (i).

etc., Raila ay Co., (1904) A. C. 301 :
73 L. J. P. C. 73.

iri//> and Berks Canal (.'<>., L. B. 7
If. <i!l7; 45 L. J. Ch. 638:
l!,>hH» V. Richard*, 60 Ij. J. Ch.
297; SI Ij. J. Ch. 944; IMmit
V. Gwyr/mi Dittriet Oouncil, (1899)

1 Ch. 583 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 233 ; (1899)

2 Ch. 608 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 7o7 ;
MrCartwy v. Londonderry, etc.,
I!n:i,nn, ''....(I<)(M) A.C.p.309 ; 73
I- J. P. C. ;;t.

(A) EdinbHrgh Water Tnultm v.
SomnurvilU, (1906) 90 L. T jn
(H. L. Sc.).

(/) Ihhtrt$ V. Qu-yrfrai District
Council, (1899) 2 Ch. 608 ; 68 L. J.
Ch. 787; cf. O'CaHwjhan y. Bal-
roihery, (1907) 1 Ir. 499; and gee

(jf) Mcstyn V. AtherUm, nipra.

(•/) Mrdwaii Xaiiiijntiim Co. y,
"'•ximy (Eari),UV. B. N. 8.673;

L. J. c. P. m

(«■) Hedler V. (I rent U'eiterri Rail-
way Co., (1907) 96 L. T. 98 (H. L.).

(f) McCartney y. Limdonderri,

Nri8ANCES RELATING TO WATER.

Chip. VI
8wt 4.

Strtikin >t Ih*

Streani tliioing
from undtr-

Where u defondunt claims the right to use the water of a
itream in an unrwwonaWe manner. It ia not neceaaary for thb
pliiiiitiff to show thiit ht- Iiuh aoatainad actual Injury in order

to obtain m injunction (*).

Where a spring; of water arisen on a man's land, he may, It
seemd, use it im he does any other propoity which is the
pro<hici' of luH <«Htato, without regard to the convenience or
ailvanlage of iiis neighbour, provided that the water is not at
its source a watercourse. But if a stream begins to flow at
tho npring hoiid in a doflned channel, " rights incidental to
streams of running water attach to it at the Hource (/)■ The
rights of a riparian proprietor In respect of a natural stream
extend to itfl triliutaries or feo<lorH flowing in d(>f^np<l channels
or watercourHPs, but do not extend to water flowing over or
soaking through land previous to its arrival at a stream (m).

The same principles wiiieh apply to natural streama flowing
in a defined cliannel ov.er the surface are also applicable to
streams flowing from under the ground in a distinct and well-
deftned channel. The right in tho latter case is equally a
right ex jure miurae, and is incident to the adjacent land as
a beneficial adjunct (n). liut the right does not exist in the

{le) SampiM ▼. HoddinM, 1 C. B..
N. a. 690 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 148;

Jlarmr v. IlirKt, Ij. R. 4 Ex. 43 ; 38
L. J. Ex. 1 ; Snrhuryv. Kitchen, 16
I.. T. sol ; Oriiifrnl v. Tiilmimltn
Joint Stirk Mill Co., 11 Q. H. 1).
p. 169 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 446 ; Jkhftiy.
(ivyr/rai Dintriit ('oiinril, (ltt99) 2
Ch. p. 614; 68 J. » 'h. 737 ;
Sharp V. Wilton, (1904) 21 T. L. B.
p. 680 ; McCartney v. Londonderry,
tte., Railixafi Co., (1904) A. C. p.
310; 73 L. J. P. C. 73.

(/) Ihidilfn V. (iitardiant of
CInltiin Ciiiin', 1 U. & N. 627 ; 26
L. J. Ex. 146; 108 R. K. 7.VJ;
liaved V. Martyn, 19 0. II. (N. S.)
732 ; 34 I.. J. C 1'. 353 ; liuntimj v.
Hi'ks, 70 I'. T. 455; Mu^lyn v.
Athtrton, (1899) 2 Ch. 3H0 ; 6S
I^. J. C'Si. 629; tortmuMth WaUr-

vorkt V. London, Briyhton, and
South Coa l Railway Co., (1910) 36
T. L. B. p. 173

(m) Brnadhmt RamMhttm, 11
Ex. p. 617 ; 25 L. J. Ex. llfl; 105
R. R. 673; McNab v. Robtrtmm,
(lb»7) A. C. 129; 66 li. J. P. C.
27.

(») WonI V. H'aurf, 3 Hx. 748;
18 L. J. l"x »(I6 : 77 R. R. 8(19 ;
Diikiiifiii' V. Uriiiiil ■liniitioii Ciiiial
Co., 7 Kt. li. 3(>(»; 21 L. J. Ex.
241; VhoMmnrt v. Richarth, 7
H. L. V. p. 384 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 81 ;
116 R. H. 187; Uodykmmm t.
Einior, \ B. & a 229 ; 32 L. .1.
U. 15. 231 ; Ornnil •hmrlii n Canal
Ci. V. Sh„<,(ir, (i Ch. 486 ; 19 \V. R.
ilV.) ; lihiti, V. liaiUimcna d-mmis-
Ki'^irrA, 17 Ti. B. Ir. 459; .Mc.\ah v.
lUAtrtton, (1897) A. C . p. 134; 66

NUIRAMCKS RRLATIMO TO WATER.

289

CAM of underground water flowing in a defined but unknown ciup. vi.
channel (o). ***»• <•

A riparian owner is entitled to the flow of wiitor puat his Polhrtka •!
land, in its natural state of purity undeterioratied by noxious **'**"'
matter diwharged into it by others (p), and any on* who
fouls tho water infringes a right of property of the riparian
owner, who can maintain an action against the wrongdoer
without proving that the pollution has caused him actual
damage (q), and the action can be maintained e?en although
other persons may have so fouled the water that the acts of
the wrongdoer may not have rendered the water less applicable
to useful parpoaes than it waa before, for the damat^ ia an
injury to a right, and therefore actionable (r).

The grantee of an exclusive right of fishing is entitled to hjary (« tMag
an injunction to restrain the pollution of the stream («), and
can maintain an action for damages and an injunction not-
withstanding that the acts complained of are offences under

I,. J. P. ('. 2"; and mse Mottyn v.
Athtrton, (1899) 2 Ch. 360 ; 68
L. J. Ch. 699; Ensiith t. itf«tn>.
l«>Utttn Wtt$r Board, (1907) 1 K. B.
p. 001 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 361.

(ii) l{mil/or<i ('orpomtitm v. Fer-
rnnil, (HM>2) 2 Ch. 655 ; 71 L. J.
I h. H5it ; Maiisell v. Vallei/ I'rintinii
' Vi., (l«ON) 2 Ch. p. 448; 77 L. J.
< h. p. 746.

Kmbrty v. Ov'tn, 6 Ex. p.
:i69 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 212 ; 86 B. B.
331 ; Lyon t. FUhimimgmf Co., 1
A. C. 673, 674 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 68;
.'iiAh Young ifc Cc. v. Bankier
tillfri/ Co., (1893) A. C. 691 ; 69
T. 8;)8 (Sc.); Jonea\. Llrnnrst
Crhan i'nmtnl, ^1911) 1 Ch. ;)!»;},
m ; 80 L. J. Ch. 145.

(</) l.inriivocil V. Stoti'markel Co.,
I.. It. 1 Fxi. 77 ; OoUmid v. Tim-
iiridijt WeUi CamnMtbmmn, 1 Ch.
349 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 382; OomJ^
V. Lightowkr, 2 Ch. 478 , 36 L. J.
Ch. 684; /oAn Ymmg A Co. t.

AinMtr Di$Htttrg Co., (1893) A. C.
p. 698 ; 69 L. T. 838; Sharp r.
Wilttm, (19M) 21 T. L. B. 678;
Jmt* V. Llnnrirtt I'rban Coiinril,
(1911) 1 Ch. p. 402; 80 L. J. Ch.
145

' ) Wood V. IVaml, 3 Ex. 748 ;
18 L. I Ex. 30j; 77 R. R. 809;
]\'o"i ,. Hiitrliffe, 2 Sim. N. 8.
lf.;j, 16«; 21 L. J. Ch. 253; 89
R. R. 2(>2; Crosslff/ v. I.ightmnltr,
2 Ch. p. 481 ; 36 L. J. Cb. 684 ;
PtnningUm v. Brimop Coal Co., i
C. D. p. 772; 46 L. J. Ch, 773;
AU.-0«n. r. lid* Oorpomlion, S
Ch. 683 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 711 ; Bhir
V. ntakin, 67 L. T. MS; (1887)
W. N. 148.

{») Fih;if,aM V. Firhank, (1897)
2 Ch. 96 ; 66 J. Cli. 529. .See
Fotttry. n'arh!iiii/lon Crbnn Cmin-
(il, (1906) 1 K. B. 648 ; 76 L. J.
K. B. 614 ( pollution ot oyabet bed*
on forwhore).

240

NUISANCES RELATING TO WATER.

ch»p. VI. the Salmon Fishery Acta punishable on conviction in sum-
****** -mary proceedings (0-

Ditcbwgcof Local authorities have power under the Public Health Act,
litnMi toeal 1875, to discharge sewage into a natural stream or water-
■■tboritiM. course, if the sewage has been freed from all excrementitioos
or other foul or tioxioua matter such as would affect or
deteriorate the actual standard of purity and quality of the
water in such stream or watercourse (u) ; and an injunc-
tion will be granted io restrain a >local authority comuittiog
a breach of the Act (x).
Right to afreet The right to affect the quantity, quality, or the flow of
ma* "iLlcquired water may be acquired by prescription (y). But the mere
hj pmcription. omission by a riparian proprietor to use the water of the
stream does not impair his title, or confer any right thereto
upon another. The right exists whether he exercises it or
not. He may begin to exercise it whenever he will. It is not
the non-user by a man of his right, but the adverse enjoy-
ment by another during twenty years, witich destroys the
ri^t (2). The time from which a prescriptive right begins

(<) Fraser v. Fear, (1912) 107
L. T. 423, r2C ; \V. N. 227.

(u) See sects. 15, 16, 17, and
Dnrrant v. Itrankxomr I'^hnn Cniiii-'
cil, (1897) 2 Ch. 291 ; 66 L. J. Ch.
6A3. See also JoHe$ y. Llmrmt
Urhan ComncU, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 411 ;
80 L. J. Ch. 148.

(r) Att.-Oen. V. liirmingham.
Tame and Distriet Drainage Board,
(1910) 1 Ch. 48; 79 L. J. Ch.
137; (1912) A. C. 788; 82 L. J.
Ch. 45.

(j) BeaUy v. Shaw, 6 East, 208 ;
8 B. B. 466; Maton v. HiU, 5 B.
ft Ad. 1 ; 2 L. J. (N. S.) K. B. 118;
39 B. B. 3S4 ; Murgatrofd v. Bobin-
i<m, 7 E. & B. 391 ; 26 L. J. Q. B.
233 ; Sam/Mm v. Hoddinott, 1 C. B.
N. .S. J). Gil ; 2(i J. C. P. 1 18 ;
107 R. E. 809; (liMami.l \. T,in-
hriilije tVillt < 'ninmtseinners, 1 Ch.
349; 35 L. J. Ch. 382; rrtttlei/

V. LightowJer, 2 Ch. 478; 36
L. J. Ch. 584; Mr/niijre Hrothen
V. McUarhi, (1893) A. C. 268;
McCartney v. Londonderry, etc.,
BaUway Co., (1604) A. C. p. 313 ;
73 L. J. P. C. 73 ; HarrinyUm (Earl)
T. Derby Curportaiim, (1906) 1 Ch.
p. 219 ; 74 L. T. Ch. 219 ; White v
mite, (1906) A. C. p. 80; 75 L. J.
P. C. 14; Att.-Oen. v. (Irand Junc-
tion Canal Co., (1909) 2 Ch. p. 516;
78 L. J. Ch. 681 ; /Wtswouth
JVatrrwork-$ Co. v. Londun, Uriyhtm,
eic.. Railway Co., (1910) 26 T. L. B.
p. 174; JoHt* V. LlanrwH Urhan
CouneU, (1911) 1 Ch. p. 410; 80
L. J. Ch. 14S. See also Aa.-am.
V. Oiiit Nirthern Uaihrny Co.,
(1909) 1 Ch. 775 ; 7S I,. J. Ch. 577.

[z) Samjifun v. lloddinoH, 1 C. B.
N. S. p. Oil ; 20 L. J. C. P. p. 150;
l!ea(nj v. Shaw, 6 East, 208 ; 8 B. B.
466; Jfufonv. j^a/,5B.ftAd. 1; 2

NUISANCES RELATING TO WATEB.

241

to accrue is tlie time when the rights of anothor riparian ohap. vi.
l.roprietor is disturbed (a). As between tw( opposite riparian *■
proprietors, the user by the one of the whole or the greater
imrt of the water by means of structures erected upcm and
within the limits of his own estate is not an adverse i^sses-
sion, which will raise the presumption of grant, for riparian
liroprietors on the opposite banks of a stream stand to each
other in the relation and with aubstantially the rights of
tenants in common (b). To constitute adverse possession,
the possession by the one must be so wholly inconsistent
witii tko claim of the other as to amount to an actual
ouster (c). The abstraction of water from a stream openly
and under claim of right for a period of twenty years to a
tcnument not abutting on the stream will create no easement
to have pure water flow down the stream to the point of
abstraction (d).

T.ie acquisition of new rights to water by long user comes Pn»criptionAot.
within the provisions of the Prescription Act 2 & 3 Will. IV. f *'
c. 71. Bj the 2nd an,d 4th clauses of that Act the continuous
enjoyment as of ri^t («) of a watercourse (/) or tiie use of
water as an easement over o